Holding

A tribunal may rectify its own mistake apparent from the record under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, and such rectification does not amount to a review of its earlier order.

Summary

Honda Siel Power Products Ltd, a manufacturer of generators, claimed enhanced depreciation under section 43A of the Income Tax Act for foreign‑exchange fluctuations in the cost of machinery. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the claim, failing to consider a coordinate‑bench judgment (Samtel Color Ltd) that was on record. The assessee filed an application under section 254(2) for rectification of the Tribunal’s mistake. The Tribunal allowed the rectification, acknowledging its oversight. The Delhi High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, holding that the power to rectify under s.254(2) was equivalent to a review, which is not permitted. The Supreme Court held that rectification of a mistake apparent from the record is a distinct power, not a review, and that the rule of precedent must be observed. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment was overturned and the Tribunal’s rectification order was restored.

Issues considered

The scope of section 254(2) (and section 154) of the Income Tax Act – whether it permits a tribunal to rectify its own mistake apparent from the record even if it amounts to revisiting an earlier order.
Whether such rectification constitutes a review of the tribunal’s order, which is beyond the statutory power.
Whether the tribunal was bound to consider the coordinate‑bench judgment (Samtel Color Ltd) as a precedent.
The interpretation of "mistake apparent from the record" in the context of appellate tribunal proceedings.

Legislation cited

Companies Act, 1956s. 209(3)
Income Tax Act, 1961s. 154, s. 209(3), s. 254(2), s. 43A

Subjects

Income TaxRectificationSection 254(2)Section 154Enhanced depreciationSection 43ATribunal mistakeRule of precedentReview of orderAppellate Tribunal

Judgment

'
-\,

A HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD.
V.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

NOVEMBER 26, 2007
B
(S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.) ....

Income Tax Act, 1961-ss. 254(2) and 154-Rectification by
tribunal, ofits own mistake apparentfrom record-Scope of-Tribunal
c overlooking judgment ofcoordinate bench on the issue and rejecting
the claim ofassessee-On rectification application, tribunal exercising
its power u/s. 254(2) and rectifYing its earlier order-Held: Tribunal
was justified-When prejudice results from an order attributable to
Tribunal's mistake, error or omission apparent from record, then it is
D the duty of Tribunal to set it right-Atonement to wronged party by
Tribunal for wrong committed by it does not amount to review of its
earlier order- 'Rule of precedent' not obliterated by s. 254 (2)-
Precedents.

E The appellant-assessee, a manufacturer of generators in technical
collaboration with a foreign Company, claimed enhanced depreciation
under section 43A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In appeal by the
Revenue, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim for enhanced
depreciation without considering the judgment of the coordinate bench
F of the Tribunal cited and relied upon by the assessee. The assessee filed
rectification application under section 254 (2) for rectification ofmistake
apparent from the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the
rectification application. The High Court set aside the order ofTribunal
holding that the Tribunal had, in fact, reviewed its earlier order which
G fell outside the scope ofs. 254(2) of the Act. Hence, the present appeal.
)"-
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The expression "rectification of mistake from the

H 552
HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. v. COMMNR. 553
OF INCOME TAX, DELHI
record" occurs in section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It also finds A
place in section 254(2) of the Act. The purpose behind enactment of
section 254(2) giving the power of rectification is based on the
fundamental principle that no party appearing before the Tribunal, be
it an assessee or the Department, should suffer on account of any
mistake committed by the Tribunal which has nothing to do with the B
inherent powers of the Tribunal In the instant case, the Tribunal in its
Order dated 10.9.2003 allowing the Rectification Application gave a
finding that the case of DCIT, Sp!. Range 5, New Delhi v. Samtel Color
Ltd was cited before it by the assessee but through oversight it missed
out the said judgment while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue C
on the question of admissibility/allowability of the claim of the assessee
for enhanced depreciation under section 43A. [Para 12] [559-D, E, F]

1.2. "Rule of precedent" is an important aspect oftegal certainty
in rule oflaw. That principle is not obliterated by section 254(2) of the D
Act. When prejudice results from an order attributable to the Tribunal's
mistake, error or omission, then it is the duty of the Tribunal to set it
right. Atonement to the wronged party by the court or Tribunal for the
wrong committed by it has nothing to do with the concept of inherent
power to review. In the instant case, the Tribunal was justified in E
exercising its powers under section 254(2) when it was pointed out to
the Tribunal thatthe judgment ofthe coordinate bench was placed before
the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it committed
a mistake in not considering the material which was already on record.
Tribunal acknowledged its mistake, and accordingly rectified its order. F
High Court was not justified in interfering with the said order. The
doctrine or concept of inherent powerwas not gone into. Proceeding on
the basis that if prejudice had resulted to the party, which prejudice is
attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission and which error
is a manifest error then the Tribunal would be justified in rectifying its G
mistake. Thus, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside
and the order passed by the Tribunal allowing the rectification application
filed by the assessee is restored.

J [Paras 13and14] [559-G; 560-A, B, C, D, E)
H
-
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 12 S.C.R.

A C/Tv. Woodward Governor India(P) Ltd, (2007) 162, TAXMAN
60, referred to.
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5412 of
2007.
B From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2006 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in LT.A. No. 735/2004.
Kavita Jha and Sandeep S. Kamail for the Appellant.
P.P. Malhotra, I. Ahmad, K.K. Tyagi, P. Narasimhan and Neera
C Gupta for the Respondents.
)
The Judgthent of the Court was delivered by
KAPADIA, J. 1. Leave granted in this special leave petition.
D 2. A short question which arises for detennination in this civil appeal
filed by the assessee concerns application of Section 154 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 ("1961 Act'') which provides for rectification of any mistake
apparent from the record by any income tax authority. It may be mentioned
at this stage that the words "rectification of any mistake apparent from
E the record" find place in section 254(2) of the said 1961 Act.
Facts
3. Assessee company is engaged in the manufacture of portable
generator sets in technical collaboration with Honda Motor Company,
F Japan. In this civil appeal, we are concerned with assessment year 1991-
92. On 30.12.1991 return of income was filed by the assessee declaring
nil income. During the relevant y~r~, tB.e assessee had taken a term loan
in foreign exchange for the import of machinery. On account of fluctuation
in foreign exchange rate, the liability of the assessee to repay the loan in
G terms of rupees went up by Rs. 7,10,910. By referring to the provisions
of section 43A, the assessee enhanced the figure of W.D.V. (written down
value) of the block of assets and claimed depreciation accordingly. The
A.O. came to the conclusion that such revision in the actual cost was not
admissible as section 43A refers to adjustment qua the actual cost of the
H machinery on account of increase or decrease in the liability of unpaid
'
)

HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. v. COMMNR. 555
OF INCOME TAX, DELHI [KAPADIA, J.]
loans utilized for the purchase of machinery. A
4. Aggrieved by the said decision, the matter was carried in appeal
by the assessee before CIT(A) who took the view that the claim of the
assessee was admissible in view of the fact that in the year preceding
assessment year 1991-92 increased depreciation was given to the B
assessee.
5. On this aspect, therefore, the Department carried the matter in
appeal to the I.T.A.T. (''the Tribunal") for both the assessment years 1990-
91 and 1991-92. By judgment and order dated 2.4.2002 the Tribunal
held that CIT(A) had erred in allowing the enhanced depreciation as under C
section 43A actual payment was a condition precedent for availing the
benefit under that section. According to the Tribunal, if actual payment
was not made after fluctuation then the value of the asset cannot be
increased by adding the increase on account of fluctuation. On facts, the
Tribunal found that, in the present case, there was no actual payment after D
the fluctuation and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to claim the
benefit under section 43A.
6. On 9.12.2002, the assessee moved the Tribunal for rectification
of mistake apparent from Order dated 2.4.2002. That application was E
made under section 254(2) which reads as under:
"BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:
DELHI BENCHES
HON'BLE "A" BENCH
F
(HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT R.M. MEHTA & SH.
HON'BLE SH. Y.K.KAPOR)
IN THE MATIER OF : MIS SHRIRAM HONDA POWER
EQUIPMENTS LTD.
.. ITANOS . 5413 & 54 l 4/D/96(A)
G

5544 & 5545/D/96(D)
ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1990-91 & 1991-92
SUB: APPLICATION U/S 254(2) FOR RECTIFICATION
H
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A OF MIST AKES IN THE ORDER DATED 2.4.2002
U4Y IT PLEASE YOUR HONOURS
1. By the captioned order, cross appeals for assessment years
1990-91 and 1991-92 were disposed of. The aforesaid
B appeals were heard on 4.2.2002. After the hearing, the
Hon'ble Bench on the request made, permitted the assessee
to file written submissions in respect of cross appeals for
assessment year 1991-92. The submissions were duly filed on
7.2.2002. The order was passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal on
c 2.4.2002.
2. That ground No. 2 of departmental appeal for assessment year
1990-91 (ITA No. 5544/D/96) and ground No. 3 of
departmental appeal for assessment year 1991-92 (ITA No.
5545/D/96) were against allowance of depreciation on
D exchange rate fluctuation which had not been paid by the
assessee. This issue was decided by the CIT(A) in favour of
the assessee by relying upon his order in the case of Samtel
Color Ltd. It was submitted during the course of hearing as
also in the written propositions that departmental appeal in the
E case ofSamtel Color Ltd. was decided by the 'E' Bench of
the Tribunal vide order dated 10.12.2001 wherein, the view
of the CIT(A) were upheld. A copy of the order was placed
at pages 48 to 52 of the paper book.

F 2.1. That, in deciding the aforesaid ground against the assessee,
the Hon'ble Bench inadvertently has not referred to the
decision of Samtel Color Ltd. Since, the order of coordinate
bench of Tribunal which was relied upon was not considered,
and that in forming another view. The view taken by different
G benches of the Tribunal was not distinguished, therefore, a
mistake apparent from record has crept in. The issue could
not be decided without being referred to a Special Bench to
reconcile the difference, if at all, between two views. Reference
in this regard is invited to the decisions ofHon'ble Supreme
H Court in the case of Sundarjas Kanya/al Bhatija & Ors. v.
HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. v. COMMNR. 557
OF INCOME TAX, DELHI [KAPADIA, J.]
Collector Thane, Maharashtra & Ors., 183 ITR 130 (SC) A
and UOI v. Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd., 186 ITR 722 (SC).
It is, therefore, submitted that the order may be rectified.
3. Disallowance under Rule 6D covered by ground Nos. 3 & 2
for assessment years 1990-91 & 1991-92 respectively were
decided against for the reason that requisite details were not B
furnished before the authorities below. In respect of assessment
year 1991-92 details of amount disallowable under Rule 6D
were furnished before CIT(A) but the same were not admitted.
These very papers were filed at pages 5 to 26 of paper book
filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal. Papers at page 5 to 7 which C
included working details of disallowance under Rule 6D were
filed before Assessing Officer. Similarly papers at pages 8 to
12 are details of professional fee. and the same were also filed
before Assessing Officer. Explanation with reference to each
of expenditure was also furnished. The Hon'ble Bench in D
deciding the issue inadvertently did not consider the submission
made and as such, a mistake has crept in.
4. Ground No. 4 of appeal for assessment year 1991-92 which
was against disallowance of Rs. 16,011/- out of sales E
conference expenses has not been disposed of.
In view of the factual position explained above, it is submitted
that order may be rectified accordingly.
Yours faithfully, F
+ For SHRIRAM HONDA POWER EQUIPMENTS LIMITED
Sd/-
(AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY)
Dated: 9.12.2002"
G
7. In the rectification application, the assessee pointed out the earlier
judgment of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal dated 10.12.2001 in
the case of DCIT, Sp!. Range 5, New Delhi v. Samtel Color Limited
in which it was held that enhanced depreciatio~ was allowable even on
notional increase in the cost of the asset on account of exchange rate H
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A fluctuation and despite the fact that the additional liability resulting from
the said fluctuation had not been paid by the assessee. It was held that
the word "paid" in section 43(2) meant amount actually paid or incurred
according to the method of accounting. In this connection, reliance was
also placed by the Tribunal on circular no. 5-P of CBDT dated 9.10.1967.
B
8. Vide order dated 10.9.2003 the Tribunal, in the present case,
allowed the rectification application filed by the assessee stating that the
judgment of the coordinate bench in Samtel Color Limited (supra) had
escaped its attention.
C 9. Against the order dated l 0.9.2003, the Department carried the
matter in appeal to the High Court vide ITA No. 735/04. By the impugned
judgment dated 11. l 0.2006, the High Court came to the conclusion, relying
on its earlier decisions, that the power to rectify any mistake was not
equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to be rectified.
D By the impugned judgment, the High Court came to the conclusion that
vide order dated l 0.9.2003, in the guise of rectification, the Tribunal had,
in fact, reviewed its earlier order which fell outside the scope of section
254(2) of the 1961 Act and, consequently, the High Court set aside the
order of the Tribunal dated 10.9.2003. Hence, this appeal.
E
An Aside
10. To complete the chronology of events, we may state that vide
judgment dated 30.4.2007 in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor
India (P) Ltd., reported in (2007) 162 TAXMAN 60 delivered by Delhi
F High Court under section 43A, as it stood prior to 1.4.2003, came to be
delivered. By the said judgment, it was held that section 43A was
prospective and not clarificatory as contended by the Department. It was
further held that in cases where the assessee followed the mercantile
system of accounting in terms of section 145 of the 1961 Act, the assessee
G was bound to abide by the accounting standards laid down by the Institute
of Chartered Accountants oflndia ("ICAI"). It was further held that, under
the accounting standards, the liability stood revised in the year in which
the fluctuation of foreign exchange took place in order to reflect the true
state of affairs regarding the business of the assessee and accordingly, the
H
HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. v. COMMNR. 559
OF INCOME TAX, DELHI [KAPADIA, J.]
word "paid" in section 43(2) should be read in the light of the accounting A
standards. It was further held that under section 209(3) of the Companies
Act, it was mandatory for companies to keep accounts on accrual basis
only.
11. Suffice it to state that, in view of the said judgment of Delhi High B
Court in the case of Woodward Governer India (P) Ltd. (supra), the
view of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal on section 43A in Samtel
Color Ltd. (supra) stood confomed. We do not wish to express any
opinion on the judgment of the High Court in Woodward Governor
(supra) except to say that judgment of the co-ordinated Bench of the C
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has been confirmed which circumstance
is relevant in deciding Rectification Application.
Scope of the Power of Rectification
12. As stated above, in this case we are concerned with the D
application under section 254(2) of the 1961 Act. As stated above, the
expression "rectification of mistake from the record" occurs in section 154.
It also finds place in section 254(2). The purpose behind enactment of
section 254(2) is based on the fundamental principle that no party
appearing before the Tribunal, be it an assessee or the Department, should E
suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal. This
fundamental principle has nothing to do with the inherent powers of the
Tribunal. In the present case, the Tribunal in its Order dated 10.9.2003
allowing the Rectification Application has given a finding that Samtel Color
+ Ltd. (supra) was cited before it by the assessee but through oversight it F
had missed out the said judgment while dismissing the appeal filed by the
assessee on the question of admissibility/allowability of the claim of the
assessee for enhanced depreciation under section 43A. One of the
important reasons for giving the power ofrectification to the Tribunal is
to see that no prejudice is caused to either of the parties appearing before G
._, it by its decision based on a mistake apparent.from the record.
13. "Rule of precedent" is an important aspect of legal certainty in
rule oflaw. That principle is not obliterated by section 254(2) of the
Income-tax Act, 1961. When prejudice results from an order attributable
H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission, then it is the duty of the
Tribunal to set it right. Atonement to the wronged party by the court or
Tribunal for the wrong com.'Ilitted by it has nothing to do with the concept
of inherent power to review. In the present case, the Tribunal was justified
in exercising its powers under section 254(2) when it was pointed out to
B the Tribunal that the judt,ment of the coordinate bench was placed before
the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had
committed a mistake in not considering the material which was already
on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake, it has accordingly
rectified its order. In our view, the High Court was not justified in interfering
C with the said order. We are not going by the doctrine or concept of inherent
power. We are simply proceeding on the basis that if prejudice had
resulted to the party, which prejudice is attributable to the Tribunal's
mistake, error or omission and which error is a manifest error then the
Tribunal would be justified in rectifying its mistake, which had been done
D in the present case.
Conclusion:
14. For the aforestated reasons, the impugned judgment of the High
Court is set aside and the order passed by the Tribunal allowing the
rectification application filed by the assessee is restored. Consequently,
the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
N.J. Appeal allowed.

+