2021 (3) TMI 1243 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Mumbai rectifies order, emphasizes judicial pronouncements, sets further proceedings date.

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT MUMBAI partially allowed the assessee's application for rectification of the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the importance of ... Rectification u/s 254 - mistakes in the order and also the failure on the part of the Tribunal to consider the some judicial pronouncements - HELD THAT:- We recall the order that was passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal of the assessee [2021 (8) TMI 1030 - ITAT MUMBAI] for the limited purpose of considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements which were relied upon by the assessee's counsel in the course of hearing of the appeal but had inadvertently remained omitted to be considered while passing the order viz. (i) CIT Vs. Akshay Textile Trading & Agencies Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (10) TMI 251 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and (ii) Manek lal Agarwal Vs DCIT [2017 (8) TMI 667 - SUPREME COURT]. The registry is accordingly directed to fix the matter on 23.04.2021. Issues:1. Rectification of Tribunal's order based on mistakes and judicial pronouncements.2. Consideration of judicial pronouncements in the order.3. Review of Tribunal's order under Sec.254(2) of the Act.Analysis:1. The miscellaneous application by the assessee sought rectification of the Tribunal's order due to mistakes apparent from the record. The authorized representative highlighted that the Tribunal failed to consider important judicial pronouncements during the appeal, which affected the order. The Tribunal's power to review its order was questioned, with the Departmental Representative arguing against rectification under Sec.254(2) of the Act.2. The Tribunal acknowledged that the failure to consider judicial pronouncements, such as the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Bombay, could constitute a mistake apparent from the record. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal agreed that non-consideration of such decisions could warrant rectification under Sec.254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of judicial pronouncements relied upon during the appeal.3. The Tribunal addressed specific claims made by the assessee regarding the Tribunal's observations in the order. It clarified discrepancies and expunged certain remarks while ensuring that factual accuracy was maintained. The Tribunal also reviewed contentions related to the assessment of income from subletting property, ensuring that all arguments presented during the appeal were duly considered.4. Despite the assessee's attempt to seek a review of the Tribunal's order, the Tribunal reiterated its inability to conduct a review under Sec.254(2) of the Act. However, the Tribunal partially allowed the application, recognizing the importance of considering relevant judicial pronouncements that were inadvertently omitted in the original order. The Tribunal set a date for further proceedings to address the missed considerations and rectify the oversight.This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT MUMBAI regarding the rectification of the Tribunal's order, the consideration of judicial pronouncements, and the limitations on reviewing orders under Sec.254(2) of the Act.