The tribunal does not have the power to review its order only to reconfirm the facts and objections of the case: ITAT Hyderabad.

In one case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, recently found that the power to review its own order under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act 1961 would not cover the power to review the facts and evidence and then grant the order to change. According to the facts, the complainant submitted an application to the court pursuant to Section 254 (2), in which he submitted this when the contested decision was issued. The complainant further alleged that only a few objections had not been taken into account.

According to Section 254 of the IT Act, orders from the Court of Appeal are:

(1) After giving both parties to the appeal the opportunity to be heard, the appellate court may issue such orders at its own discretion.

(2) The court of appeal may at any time within four years from the date of the decision change a decision issued by it in accordance with paragraph 1 in order to correct an error arising from the minutes, and must do so. Such a change will not be made if the Errors are brought to the attention of the evaluator or the 2 evaluator: Provided that a change which improves a evaluation or reduces a refund or otherwise increases the liability of the evaluator is not made. Subsection, unless the appellate court has informed the evaluator of its intention and given the evaluator a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

However, in the light of the facts at hand, the court decided that the order can be reviewed on the basis of these facts. They also note that reassessing facts and changing the order of the tribunal is nothing more than a review of the ITAT order. Pursuant to U / s 254 (2) of the IT Act, ITAT can only correct the alleged errors that emerge from the files and cannot reevaluate the evidence and review its findings as made by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the CIT case vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (1993) 203 ITR 497 (bom.). This MA is therefore not maintainable and is accordingly rejected.

Comments are closed.