- (1.) WE have heard Shri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Shri Ashok Kumar appears for the Income Tax Department.
(2.) THIS Income Tax Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) arises out of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "B", New Delhi dated 11 -5 -2012 in M.A. No. 46/Del/2011 in I.T.A. No. 1240/Del/2010 and C.O. No. 184/Del/2010, rejecting appellants miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Act.
(3.) THE Tribunal found that there is no mistake in the order, which requires correction. The assessees plea amounts to review of the order, which is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act. Since no mistake, much less apparent was found on the record, which can be rectified under section 254(2), the application was dismissed. The appellant -assessee has preferred the appeal on the following alleged substantial questions of law: - - "(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no mistake found on record, which can be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act, by overlooking that the consignment note of M/s. Om Logistics Ltd., and the Sales Tax Form No. 132326 & 132327 dated 4 -4 -2001 relied upon by the Tribunal does not relate to the machine in dispute, which has been received by the appellant on 30 -3 -2001, vide Sales Tax Form No. 132323? (2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the aforesaid application for rectification filed by the appellant amounts to review of the order which is against the Apex Courts decision in the case of Deva Metal Powders Pvt Ltd. v. C.I.T. reported in, 2008 UPTC 242? (3) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in refusing to rectify the mistake in para 7 of the order dated 27.8.2010, which is apparent on the face on the record, as has also been noted by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the facts having been recorded incorrectly, could be rectified by the Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Act, as held by this Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT v. Moolchand Shyamlal -;