37. Appellate Tribunal – Rectification of mistake – Section 254(2) – Mistake can be on part of litigants or his advisors

Binaguri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT; 389 ITR 648 (Cal):

While assessing the fringe benefit tax, the Assessing Officer
gave the assessee the benefit applicable under rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules
1962. However, invoking section 154, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter
for the sake of brevity referred to as the “Act”) the Assessing
Officer withdrew the benefit. The Commissioner(Appeals) confirmed the
rectification order. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal
contending that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in holding that Rule 8 had
no applicability while calculating the eligible expenses of a company engaged
in the business of cultivation, manufacture and sale of tea for the purpose of
fringe benefit tax. Based on the Tribunal decisions against the assessee, the
assessee was advised by the advisors not to press the appeal. Accordingly, the
assessee did not press the appeal and the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the
appeal. It was subsequently noticed that the said Tribunal decisions were
reversed by the Calcutta High Court and the issue was decided in favour of the
assessee even before the dismissal order of the Tribunal. Therefore, within two
months of the order of the Tribunal, the assessee applied for restoration of
the appeal u/s. 254(2) of the Act which was rejected by the Tribunal for the
following reasons.

“The learned counsel for
the assessee reiterated the stand of the assessee as contained in the
miscellaneous application. We are of the view that jurisdiction u/s. 254(2) of
the Act can be exercised only to rectify an error apparent on the face of the
record. The contention in the miscellaneous application, even if true, cannot
give rise to any mistake in the order of the Tribunal apparent on the face of
the record. The miscellaneous application, in our view, cannot therefore be entertained
and the same is hereby rejected.”

On appeal by the assessee, the Calcutta High Court allowed
the appeal and held as under:

“i)   Section 254(2) of the Act did not provide
that it had to be a mistake solely on the part of the Appellate Tribunal to
recall an order and that the statutory power could also be exercised in the
case of mistake apparent on the part of the litigants or his advisors.

ii)   Neither the Appellate Tribunal nor the
assessee was aware of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore,
the prayer for leave to withdraw the appeal and the order allowing the prayer
were both based on a mistake. The order of the Tribunal is set aside.