The Facts Of The Case Are As Follows v. Bhooratnam And

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAAND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.26 of 2013 DATE: 27.06.2013 Between: National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.,Hyderabad. … Appellant And The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assts),Hyderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A No.26 of 2001 JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal was admitted, however, without formulation of point. Nowat the time of hearing of the appeal, it is necessary to formulate the point. Therefore, we formulate the point. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theappellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the rectification petitionfiled by the assessee under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961 when it sought a rectification on the basis of a subsequentjudgment of the Supreme Court?” The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant herein filed an application for rectification of the orderpassed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad on11.12.1997 in ITA.No.1948/Hyd/1992. The basis of making the application isthat the earlier judgment could be reversed in view of the subsequentpronouncement of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the issue. Thelearned Tribunal has rejected the said plea on the ground that under Section154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the rectification cannot be made on thebasis of the subsequent pronouncement of the Court. The learned Tribunalrelied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court on this issue. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal,while relying upon the judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Bhooratnam and Company[[1]], did not notice the pronouncement of the Supreme Court. He,however, did not cite the said decision of the Supreme Court. We have carefully examined the judgment relied on by the learnedTribunal as well as by the learned counsel for the appellant and we are of theview that there is no pronouncement of the Supreme Court on this issue thatsubsequent Supreme Court judgment can be the basis for rectification of theerrors under Section 154 of the Act. The language of Section 154 is veryclear to hold that whatever material is available at the time of passing thejudgment the rectification can be made taking note of those material alone and no other material. We, therefore, set out Section 154 (1) of the Act: “154(1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record anincome tax authority referred to in Section 116 may – a)amend any order passed by it under the provisions of thisAct.Act. b)amend any intimation or deemed intimation under sub-section (1) of Section 143.section (1) of Section 143. c)amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of Section200A.”200A.” Thus, it is very clear that the mistake apparent from the record can berectified. According to us whatever materials are available on the date ofpassing of the judgment and such rectification can only be made taking noteof those materials alone and no other material. At the time of passing of thejudgment admittedly the Supreme Court judgment was not available. Moreover, the decision of the Court of law cannot be a material, but, it may bea supporting hand for any point raised in the field. Therefore, decision cannotbe a ground for rectification of the errors and such decision can, at best, berelied on if any appeal is preferred before the appellate forum. Admittedly, noappeal has been preferred against the original judgment and order, dated11.12.1997. Thus, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Date: 27.06.2013ES [1]238 ITR 674 _____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________ G. ROHINI, J