ITAT dismisses assessee's Miscellaneous Application, upholding order consistency and rejecting review attempt.

The ITAT dismissed the assessee's Miscellaneous Application, finding no merit in the claim of an error apparent on the face of the record. The ITAT clarified that the written order dated 12.12.2014 was consistent with the facts and legal principles, and no pronouncement dismissing the revenue's appeal was made on 16.10.2014. The ITAT emphasized that the power of review is not available to it, and the petition was an attempt to reargue the appeal on merits. The order was pronounced in the open court on 14th March 2016.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Request for recall of the ITAT order dated 12.12.2014.
2. Alleged mistake in the ITAT order contrary to the pronouncement made in open court.
3. Applicability of Rule 34(5)(a) of the Income Tax Tribunal Rules, 1963.
4. Examination of legal precedents cited by the assessee.
5. Examination of the merits of the case and facts presented.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Request for Recall of the ITAT Order Dated 12.12.2014:
The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) requesting the recall of the ITAT order dated 12.12.2014, arguing that the order suffered from a mistake apparent on record. The assessee contended that the ITAT had inadvertently remanded the order back to the CIT(A) instead of dismissing the revenue's appeal, which was pronounced in open court on 16.10.2014.

2. Alleged Mistake in the ITAT Order Contrary to the Pronouncement Made in Open Court:
The assessee claimed that the ITAT's written order dated 12.12.2014 was at variance with the pronouncement made on 16.10.2014, which dismissed the revenue's appeal. The affidavits submitted by the counsels supported this claim. However, upon reviewing the records, the ITAT found no evidence of such pronouncement dismissing the revenue's appeal on 16.10.2014. The ITAT clarified that the hearing concluded on 25.06.2014 without any pronouncement, and the case was listed for clarification on 22.08.2014, with the final hearing on 16.10.2014.

3. Applicability of Rule 34(5)(a) of the Income Tax Tribunal Rules, 1963:
The ITAT examined Rule 34(5)(a), which allows for immediate pronouncement of the order upon conclusion of the hearing. However, the ITAT noted that no pronouncement dismissing the revenue's appeal was made on 16.10.2014. The ITAT emphasized that the date of pronouncement is when the order is dated and signed by both Members or Judges.

4. Examination of Legal Precedents Cited by the Assessee:
The assessee relied on the case of CIT vs G. Sagar Suri & Sons, where the ITAT had rectified an order that was at variance with its pronouncement. However, the ITAT found that this precedent did not apply to the present case, as no pronouncement dismissing the revenue's appeal was made. The ITAT also referenced other legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Vinod Kumar Singh vs Banaras Hindu University, which emphasized that a judgment becomes operative upon pronouncement in open court, provided it is subsequently signed.

5. Examination of the Merits of the Case and Facts Presented:
The ITAT reviewed the merits of the case, noting that the CIT(A) had not considered all material facts in the order under challenge. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had been swayed by past legal positions without verifying the specific facts of the case. The ITAT restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for a thorough examination of all necessary evidence. The ITAT concluded that the assessee's M.A. was essentially a device to reargue the appeal on merits, which is not permissible.

Conclusion:
The ITAT dismissed the assessee's M.A., finding no merit in the claim of an error apparent on the face of the record. The ITAT emphasized that the written order dated 12.12.2014 was consistent with the facts and legal principles, and no pronouncement dismissing the revenue's appeal was made on 16.10.2014. The ITAT reiterated that the power of review is not available to it, and the petition was an attempt to reargue the appeal on merits. The order was pronounced in the open court on 14th March 2016.

---