INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 254

Appeal (Tribunal) - Rectification of mistakes - Assessee pleaded Tribunal to adopt the fair market value at Rs. 600 per square meter, instead of Rs. 900 per square meter -

By way of this application, assessee had sought to point out that a mistake apparent from record within the meaning of section 254(2) had crept in the order of the Tribunal. Assessee submitted before the Bench that all the above issues, as stated in the Miscellaneous Application, have not been considered by Tribunal in its Order while deciding the appeal. It was the case of assessee that Tribunal treated fair market value of the asset at Rs. 900 per sq. mt., which had no basis, except for the estimate by CIT(A). Tribunal ought to have adopted the fair value measurement of Rs. 600 per sq. mt. supported with the certificate particularly when AO had not made any reference to Valuation Officer under section 55A. Held: Tribunal had considered the paper book of the assessee. It was not necessary that Tribunal should consider in its concluding para each and every judgment cited by the assessee. It is not a case of the assessee that Tribunal has not considered the paper book of assessee, for instance, Tribunal had given a passing reference of the judgment of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 734 (SC) it means Tribunal was aware about the judgment cited by the assessee in its paper book. In the Miscellaneous application, Revenue argued the various legal issues which were already considered by Tribunal in its Order. When an argument and debate is made by Revenue for a particular issue then it would not a mistake apparent in the order of Tribunal. Therefore, there was no mistake apparent in order of the Tribunal.

Followed:GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO And Others (2003) 259-ITR-19 (SC) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 734 (SC), Martech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 81-Taxmann.com-73 (Madras) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1326 (Mad-HC), Deepak Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2017) 80-taxmann.com-77 (Karn-HC) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 853 (Karn-HC), Vishwanath Engineers v. ACIT (2013) 354-ITR-211 (Guj) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1611 (Guj-HC). Relied:Veer Vardhman Finance Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2017) 81-ITR-(Trib)-669 (Del) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 5272 (Del-Trib) and Dy. CIT v. Jayaben Bholabhai Patel Surat [ITA. No. 2867/Ahd/2011, dt. 9-11-2012].