9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 85 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 254 - non-adjudication of the ground - HELD THAT - Assessee filed return of income u/s 139 of the Act declaring income. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of the assessee. In the response of the notice u/s 153A of the Act the assessee has filed the return of income declaring the same income. AO completed the assessment u/s 153A/ 143(3) at income of Rs 14.93.82.868/- after making the additions. PCIT issued notice dated 26-03- 2024 u/s 263 of the Act asking the assessee to show cause as why the aforesaid assessment order dated 30-03-2022 should not be revised as the same was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. PCIT did not agree with the contention of the assessee and passed order dated 30-03-2024 u/s 263. Assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the ld. PCIT which was dismissed by the order dated 03-10-2024 by the tribunal. After due consideration we observed that the issue raised by the assessee that ground No. 5 9 were not adjudicated. We are inclined to recall this appeal with limited purpose for adjudication of the grounds no. 5 9. Therefore registry is directed to post this appeal in due course after informing both the parties. Thus we find merit in the plea of the assessee. Hence the Misc. application is allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issues considered in this judgment are: 1. Whether the Tribunal failed to adjudicate on grounds No. 5 and 9 in the original appeal, which constitutes a mistake apparent from the record under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the Tribunal should recall its order dated 03-10-2024 to address these grounds. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Non-Adjudication of Grounds No. 5 and 9 Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The assessee argued that the non-adjudication of specific grounds in an appeal constitutes a mistake apparent from the record, which is rectifiable under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee cited several precedents, including decisions from the Bombay High Court and ITAT Delhi, to support the claim that such omissions warrant rectification. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged that the failure to adjudicate on grounds No. 5 and 9 in the original appeal represents a mistake apparent from the record. It recognized the importance of addressing all grounds raised by the assessee to ensure a fair and comprehensive adjudication process. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and noted that the grounds in question were indeed part of the original appeal. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that these grounds were inadvertently overlooked during the initial decision-making process. Application of Law to Facts: Applying Section 254(2), the Tribunal determined that the omission of grounds No. 5 and 9 was a rectifiable error. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification is necessary to uphold the principles of justice and ensure that all issues raised by the assessee are duly considered. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Departmental Representative contended that the appeal was decided after considering the assessee's submissions. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that specific grounds were not adjudicated, thus necessitating a recall of the order for limited purposes. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the omission of grounds No. 5 and 9 constituted a mistake apparent from the record. It allowed the miscellaneous application, agreeing to recall the original order to specifically address these grounds. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal stated, "For the sake of complete justice, we are inclined to recall this appeal with limited purpose for adjudication of the grounds no. 5 & 9." Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that all grounds raised in an appeal must be adjudicated to ensure fairness and justice. It highlights the Tribunal's responsibility to rectify any apparent mistakes in its orders under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal determined that the omission of grounds No. 5 and 9 was a mistake apparent from the record and allowed the miscellaneous application to recall the order for limited adjudication of these grounds.
|
