2022 (3) TMI 1482 - AT - Income Tax

Miscellaneous Application by assessee requesting to recall the ITAT order - TP Adjustment - exclusion/inclusion of TTK Healthcare - HELD THAT - We found that while adjudicating the issue of exclusion/inclusion of TTK Healthcare the Tribunal has restored the issue back to the file of the AO/TPO whereas Ld. AR has pointed that this issue has already been considered by the DRP in A.Y. 2012-13 and the copy of the order is placed on record - He submitted that all the relevant information were already placed before the ITAT. After considering the submissions we observe that there is a mistake apparent on record while adjudicating this issue. Therefore we deem it fit and proper to recall only those two grounds (Ground No. 1 and 2) for denovo adjudication. We direct the registry to post this case in due course in regular bench.

Summary

Issues:
1. Request to recall ITAT order regarding exclusion/inclusion of TTK Healthcare.
2. Consideration of relevant case law and consistency in decision-making by ITAT.
3. Assessment of whether there is a mistake apparent on the order passed by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee requested the ITAT to recall the order dated 10.01.2020 concerning Ground Nos. 1 and 2 related to the exclusion/inclusion of TTK Healthcare. The assessee argued that the issue had already been considered by the DRP in A.Y. 2012-13, and all relevant information was presented before the ITAT. The ITAT decided to recall only Ground Nos. 1 and 2 for denovo adjudication, acknowledging a mistake apparent on record while adjudicating this issue.

2. During the hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee referenced a case law and emphasized the need for consistency in decision-making. The AR highlighted that the Tribunal had relied on a previous case but failed to address the issue of consistency. By citing the case of Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Maritime (India) Pvt. Ltd., the AR argued for the recall of Ground Nos. 1 and 2 based on the principles established in the case law. The ITAT considered the arguments presented and decided to recall the specific grounds for further adjudication.

3. The Ld. DR, representing the Department, contended that the Tribunal had remitted the issue to the TPO with a clear direction for fresh adjudication, causing no prejudice to the assessee. However, after evaluating the submissions and material on record, the ITAT acknowledged a mistake apparent on record regarding the exclusion/inclusion of TTK Healthcare. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, directing the case to be posted for regular bench proceedings.

In conclusion, the ITAT's judgment addressed the request to recall the order regarding the exclusion/inclusion of TTK Healthcare, considered the application of relevant case law and the need for consistency, and assessed the presence of a mistake apparent on the order passed by the Tribunal. The decision to recall specific grounds for denovo adjudication reflects a thorough examination of the issues raised by the parties and ensures a fair and just resolution in accordance with the law.