2022 (1) TMI 1226 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rectifies typographical errors in order for A.Y. 2013-14, ensures accurate adjudication

M/s. Trent Limited Versus Income Tax Officer – 2 (3) (3), Mumbai

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's miscellaneous application to rectify typographical errors in the order for A.Y. 2013-14. The errors pertained to the ... Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - HELD THAT:- Disallowance towards warrant issue expenses claimed u/s. 35D of the Act and as a matter of fact Ground No.5 of the grounds of appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2013-14 relates to interest income, whether should be taxed under the head “income from other sources” or as “business income” was the issue and the Tribunal inadvertently did not adjudicate upon this issue. Therefore, the assessee in its petition prays that the Tribunal may recall its order for the A.Y.2013-14 to rectify the typographical error crept in the order of the Tribunal and to dispose off ground No.5 of ground of appeal. On hearing the rival contentions and perusing the order of the Tribunal, we noticed that there are certain typographical errors crept in the order of the Tribunal especially in Para Nos. 118 and 119 at Page No.75. Thus the same are rectified hereunder. Issues:Rectification of typographical errors in the Tribunal order for A.Y. 2013-14, disposal of Ground No. 5 related to interest income classification.Analysis:1. The assessee filed a miscellaneous application pointing out mistakes in the Tribunal order for A.Y. 2013-14, specifically related to the disposal of Ground No. 2 concerning disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules. The counsel argued that a typographical error occurred in referencing Ground No. 3 instead of Ground No. 2 from the appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, which needed rectification.2. The counsel further highlighted that the Tribunal's finding regarding Ground Nos. 3 to 5, related to disallowance of warrant issue expenses claimed under section 35D of the Act, was factually incorrect. It was clarified that only Ground Nos. 3 and 4 were linked to warrant issue expenses, while Ground No. 5 concerned the classification of interest income, which the Tribunal failed to address inadvertently.3. Upon reviewing the contentions and the Tribunal order, it was acknowledged that typographical errors were present in Paragraphs 118 and 119. The Tribunal rectified the errors, ensuring that the correct references and decisions were reflected in the order. This rectification aimed to align the order with the actual grounds raised by the assessee and the corresponding legal provisions.4. Notably, the Tribunal failed to dispose of Ground No. 5 of the assessee's appeal related to the classification of interest income for A.Y. 2013-14. Recognizing this as a mistake apparent on record, the Tribunal recalled the order dated 15.07.2020 for the limited purpose of addressing and resolving the outstanding issue concerning the interest income classification.5. Ultimately, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee was allowed to rectify the identified errors and ensure that all grounds of appeal were appropriately addressed and disposed of in the Tribunal order for A.Y. 2013-14. The order was pronounced on 05.01.2022 in compliance with Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, emphasizing the importance of accurate and comprehensive adjudication in tax matters.