The Tribunal decided against me without dealing with a coordinate bench decision I had actually filed in the paper book. Can it recall that order under section 254(2), or is that a review it cannot do?
It can. The Supreme Court held that where a coordinate bench decision was placed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal overlooked it, the resulting order carries a manifest error and section 254(2) permits the Tribunal to set it right. The purpose of the sub-section is that no party, assessee or Department, should suffer because of a mistake by the Tribunal. That is atonement for the Tribunal's own error, not the exercise of an inherent power of review, and the High Court was wrong to strike the rectification down as a disguised review.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - S.H. Kapadia and B. Sudershan Reddy JJ; judgment by Kapadia J) on 2007-11-26, reported as AIRONLINE 2007 SC 323; Civil Appeal No. 5412 of 2007 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 5551 of 2007). It bears on section 254(2), section 43A, section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals matters.
This is the authority that keeps section 254(2) usable. High Courts had been reading the no-review principle so widely that any recall of an order looked like review, and this judgment redraws the line: the question is not how much of the order is undone but whether the prejudice flows from the Tribunal's own mistake, error or omission. It ties the point to the rule of precedent, holding that legal certainty is not obliterated by section 254(2), so ignoring a coordinate bench ruling is a manifest error rather than a debatable one. The practical consequence is that a decision cited and filed but not dealt with is a rectifiable mistake, while a decision never placed before the bench is not - which is why what went into the paper book matters so much.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee made portable generator sets in technical collaboration with Honda Motor Company, Japan. For assessment year 1991-92 it filed a nil return on 30 December 1991. It had taken a foreign currency term loan to import machinery, and exchange fluctuation increased its rupee repayment liability by Rs 7,10,910. Relying on section 43A it raised the written down value of the block and claimed depreciation on the higher figure. The Assessing Officer refused. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim, following his own order in Samtel Color Ltd. The Department appealed for assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, and by order of 2 April 2002 the Tribunal held that actual payment was a condition precedent under section 43A and, there having been no payment after the fluctuation, disallowed the enhanced depreciation. At the hearing and in written submissions the assessee had relied on the order of the E Bench of the Tribunal of 10 December 2001 in DCIT v Samtel Color Ltd, which held enhanced depreciation allowable on a notional increase, and had filed a copy at pages 48 to 52 of the paper book. The Tribunal's order did not refer to it. On 9 December 2002 the assessee applied under section 254(2). By order of 10 September 2003 the Tribunal allowed the application, recording that Samtel Color had escaped its attention. On the Department's appeal the Delhi High Court, by judgment of 11 October 2006, held that this was review in the guise of rectification and set the order aside.
The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment set aside and the Tribunal's order allowing rectification restored, with no order as to costs. The Tribunal was justified in exercising its power under section 254(2) once it was shown that a coordinate bench judgment had been placed before it when the original order was passed and it had failed to consider material already on the record. The Court decided the case without invoking any doctrine of inherent power: where prejudice results to a party from the Tribunal's own mistake, error or omission, and the error is manifest, the Tribunal is justified in rectifying it. The Court also recorded, as background, that the Delhi High Court in CIT v Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd, decided on 30 April 2007, had since confirmed the view the coordinate bench had taken in Samtel Color on section 43A, while expressly declining to express any opinion of its own on that judgment.
The expression rectification of a mistake apparent from the record appears in section 154 and again in section 254(2). The Court identified the principle behind section 254(2) as a fundamental one: no party before the Tribunal, whether the assessee or the Department, should suffer on account of a mistake committed by the Tribunal. That principle, the Court said twice, has nothing to do with any inherent power of review, and the High Court had gone wrong by testing the Tribunal's order against the review doctrine instead. The Court then added the rule of precedent. Consistency between benches is an aspect of legal certainty in the rule of law and section 254(2) does not obliterate it, so a decision reached without dealing with a coordinate bench ruling cited at the hearing is an order infected by manifest error. The decisive fact was on the record: the Tribunal itself found that Samtel Color had been cited before it and had been missed through oversight. Once the Tribunal acknowledged that its own omission had caused prejudice on a live ground, setting it right was a duty rather than a discretion, and the High Court had no warrant to interfere. The Court also treated it as relevant, though not decisive, that the coordinate bench view on section 43A had by then been confirmed by the Delhi High Court in Woodward Governor, so the omission was not immaterial.
no party appearing before the Tribunal, be it an assessee or the Department, should suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppIt can. The Supreme Court held that where a coordinate bench decision was placed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal overlooked it, the resulting order carries a manifest error and section 254(2) permits the Tribunal to set it right. The purpose of the sub-section is that no party, assessee or Department, should suffer because of a mistake by the Tribunal. That is atonement for the Tribunal's own error, not the exercise of an inherent power of review, and the High Court was wrong to strike the rectification down as a disguised review. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - S.H. Kapadia and B. Sudershan Reddy JJ; judgment by Kapadia J) and bears on section 254(2), section 43A, section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as AIRONLINE 2007 SC 323; Civil Appeal No. 5412 of 2007 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 5551 of 2007). This is the authority that keeps section 254(2) usable. High Courts had been reading the no-review principle so widely that any recall of an order looked like review, and this judgment redraws the line: the question is not how much of the order is undone but whether the prejudice flows from the Tribunal's own mistake, error or omission. It ties the point to the rule of precedent, holding that legal certainty is not obliterated by section 254(2), so ignoring a coordinate bench ruling is a manifest error rather than a debatable one. The practical consequence is that a decision cited and filed but not dealt with is a rectifiable mistake, while a decision never placed before the bench is not - which is why what went into the paper book matters so much. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Build the record at the hearing, not afterwards. File every authority you rely on in the paper book, give the page numbers, and get written submissions on file, because the rectification application succeeds on proof that the material was already before the bench.
The assessee made portable generator sets in technical collaboration with Honda Motor Company, Japan. For assessment year 1991-92 it filed a nil return on 30 December 1991. It had taken a foreign currency term loan to import machinery, and exchange fluctuation increased its rupee repayment liability by Rs 7,10,910. Relying on section 43A it raised the written down value of the block and claimed depreciation on the higher figure. The Assessing Officer refused. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim, following his own order in Samtel Color Ltd. The Department appealed for assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, and by order of 2 April 2002 the Tribunal held that actual payment was a condition precedent under section 43A and, there having been no payment after the fluctuation, disallowed the enhanced depreciation. At the hearing and in written submissions the assessee had relied on the order of the E Bench of the Tribunal of 10 December 2001 in DCIT v Samtel Color Ltd, which held enhanced depreciation allowable on a notional increase, and had filed a copy at pages 48 to 52 of the paper book. The Tribunal's order did not refer to it. On 9 December 2002 the assessee applied under section 254(2). By order of 10 September 2003 the Tribunal allowed the application, recording that Samtel Color had escaped its attention. On the Department's appeal the Delhi High Court, by judgment of 11 October 2006, held that this was review in the guise of rectification and set the order aside. The matter was decided on 2007-11-26 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - S.H. Kapadia and B. Sudershan Reddy JJ; judgment by Kapadia J). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment set aside and the Tribunal's order allowing rectification restored, with no order as to costs. The Tribunal was justified in exercising its power under section 254(2) once it was shown that a coordinate bench judgment had been placed before it when the original order was passed and it had failed to consider material already on the record. The Court decided the case without invoking any doctrine of inherent power: where prejudice results to a party from the Tribunal's own mistake, error or omission, and the error is manifest, the Tribunal is justified in rectifying it. The Court also recorded, as background, that the Delhi High Court in CIT v Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd, decided on 30 April 2007, had since confirmed the view the coordinate bench had taken in Samtel Color on section 43A, while expressly declining to express any opinion of its own on that judgment.
The expression rectification of a mistake apparent from the record appears in section 154 and again in section 254(2). The Court identified the principle behind section 254(2) as a fundamental one: no party before the Tribunal, whether the assessee or the Department, should suffer on account of a mistake committed by the Tribunal. That principle, the Court said twice, has nothing to do with any inherent power of review, and the High Court had gone wrong by testing the Tribunal's order against the review doctrine instead. The Court then added the rule of precedent. Consistency between benches is an aspect of legal certainty in the rule of law and section 254(2) does not obliterate it, so a decision reached without dealing with a coordinate bench ruling cited at the hearing is an order infected by manifest error. The decisive fact was on the record: the Tribunal itself found that Samtel Color had been cited before it and had been missed through oversight. Once the Tribunal acknowledged that its own omission had caused prejudice on a live ground, setting it right was a duty rather than a discretion, and the High Court had no warrant to interfere. The Court also treated it as relevant, though not decisive, that the coordinate bench view on section 43A had by then been confirmed by the Delhi High Court in Woodward Governor, so the omission was not immaterial. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "no party appearing before the Tribunal, be it an assessee or the Department, should suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal."
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 2007-11-26 and is reported as AIRONLINE 2007 SC 323; Civil Appeal No. 5412 of 2007 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 5551 of 2007). Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 254(2), section 43A, section 154, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment set aside and the Tribunal's order allowing rectification restored, with no order as to costs. The Tribunal was justified in exercising its power under section 254(2) once it was shown that a coordinate bench judgment had been placed before it when the original order was passed and it had failed to consider material already on the record. The Court decided the case without invoking any doctrine of inherent power: where prejudice results to a party from the Tribunal's own mistake, error or omission, and the error is manifest, the Tribunal is justified in rectifying it. The Court also recorded, as background, that the Delhi High Court in CIT v Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd, decided on 30 April 2007, had since confirmed the view the coordinate bench had taken in Samtel Color on section 43A, while expressly declining to express any opinion of its own on that judgment. It arises in Appeals matters, on section 254(2), section 43A, section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India - S.H. Kapadia and B. Sudershan Reddy JJ; judgment by Kapadia J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Draft the section 254(2) application to identify the specific material overlooked and the specific ground it affected, and say what prejudice followed; do not reargue the merits. Where two coordinate benches differ, say so at the original hearing and ask for a reference to a Special Bench, which is the point this assessee took from Paras Laminates. Do not use this case to reopen a conclusion you simply dislike. It covers material on record that was missed, not a fresh view of material that was considered.
Still good law. The principle stated here is heavily relied on in section 254(2) practice and nothing in the judgment suggests doubt about it; I checked no later decision. Read it for what it holds: the Tribunal missed material that was demonstrably on its record, and the Court proceeded on prejudice from a manifest error rather than on any inherent power. It does not decide the limits of section 254(2) generally, and a reader should also check the time limit in section 254(2), which has been amended since this judgment and is not discussed in it. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
Until build 87 this library carried a second entry on the same judgment, at /caselaw/case/honda-siel-power-products-v-cit-tribunal-rectification/, which asked: The Tribunal decided against me without dealing with a coordinate bench decision I had cited. Can it put that right under section 254(2), or is that a review? It was the shorter of the two write-ups and has been merged into this one. That address now redirects here, and every citation, section and subject it carried that this entry did not has been folded in. The batch line carried only one citation, AIRONLINE 2007 SC 323, so the appeal number from the cause title has been added; the ITR reference was not available to me. The judgment does not decide the section 43A question itself - it expressly declines to express an opinion on Woodward Governor - so nothing here settles whether depreciation on an unpaid exchange loss is allowable. Nor does it deal with the other two grounds in the rectification application, on rule 6D and sales conference expenses. I have not read the Delhi High Court judgment that was set aside or the Samtel Color order. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment set aside and the Tribunal's order allowing rectification restored, with no order as to costs. The Tribunal was justified in exercising its power under section 254(2) once it was shown that a coordinate bench judgment had been placed before it when the original order was passed and it had failed to consider material already on the record. The Court decided the case without invoking any doctrine of inherent power: where prejudice results to a party from the Tribunal's own mistake, error or omission, and the error is manifest, the Tribunal is justified in rectifying it. The Court also recorded, as background, that the Delhi High Court in CIT v Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd, decided on 30 April 2007, had since confirmed the view the coordinate bench had taken in Samtel Color on section 43A, while expressly declining to express any opinion of its own on that judgment.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The Tribunal recalled its whole order on my miscellaneous application. Will that recall survive?
An amendment adds a new levy. Does it reach back to earlier years?
I passed borrowed money to my sister concern interest-free. Can the AO disallow the interest I paid?
What actually counts as a 'mistake apparent from the record' under s.154?