ITAT Must Recall Its Order U/s 254 To Correct Manifest Error Apparent On Record: Delhi High Court
Pankaj Bajpai
14 March 2024 2:30 AM GMT
While condoning the delay of 86 days by Revenue in filing the appeal, the Delhi High Court dismisses Revenue's appeal filed against the Tribunal's order in miscellaneous application filed by assessee to review its earlier order u/s. 254(2) of the Income tax Act.The Division Bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that “the ITAT had clearly...
While condoning the delay of 86 days by Revenue in filing the appeal, the Delhi High Court dismisses Revenue's appeal filed against the Tribunal's order in miscellaneous application filed by assessee to review its earlier order u/s. 254(2) of the Income tax Act.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that “the ITAT had clearly rendered incompatible and inconsistent findings. In fact, we are constrained to observe that paras 12 and 21 were clearly contradictory. It was thus not only imperative but also expedient in the interest of justice for the ITAT to recall its order of 29 September 2020 and correct a manifest error apparent on the record”. (Para 6)
The Bench noted the questions of law raised by Revenue for consideration as to (i) whether the Tribunal erred in reviewing its decision while deciding miscellaneous applications filed under Sec. 254(2) and (ii) whether the Tribunal has review power under the said section in light of Apex Court's decision in Reliance Telecom Ltd.
The Bench further noted that the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on an MA moved by assessee over the disposed of appeal dated 29.09.2020 on the comparability issues of Persistent Systems Ltd (PSL) and Sasken Communication Technology Ltd.
The Bench therefore opined that it was imperative on Tribunal's behalf to recall its order dated 29.09.2020 and correct a manifest error apparent on the record since finding rendered therein were incompatible and inconsistent.
The Bench also stated that if that route had not been adopted, it would have left the Transfer Pricing Officer as well as the Assessing Officer with an unresolvable quandary.
Counsel for Appellant/ Revenue: Sunil Agarwal, Shivansh B. Pandya, Utkash Tiwari and Amaan Ahmed Khan
Counsel for Respondent/ Assessee: Sachit Jolly, Disha Jham, Soumya Singh and Devansh Jain
Case Title: PCIT vs Fiserv India Private Ltd.
Case Number: ITA No 437/2023
Click here to read/ download the Order
