2022 (2) TMI 1269 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT rectifies error, emphasizes addressing all raised grounds for fair adjudication and upholding natural justice.

Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Limited Versus DCIT-8 (3) (1), M.K. Road.

The ITAT recalled its previous order to rectify a mistake regarding the non-adjudication of a ground raised by the appellant in ITA No. 3874/Mum/2019 for ... Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - TDS u/s 194H - payment of the discounts allowed to its prepaid distributors on sale of starter kits and prepaid recharge vouchers - it is assesses plea that in the aforesaid order of ITAT ground No.1 raised by the revenue has not been adjudicated - HELD THAT:- A reading of the ITAT order shows that ITAT has only adjudicated the ground No.2; and the ground No.1 has not been adjudicated. Ld. Counsel of the assessee fairly agreed to the above. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that a mistake apparent form record has crept into the ITAT order inasmuch as ground No.1 duly raised before it has not been adjudicated. Accordingly, the aforesaid order of the ITAT is recalled for the limited purpose of adjudicating ground No.1, which has remained un-adjudicated. Assessees miscellaneous application stands allowed as above. Issues:1. Rectification of mistake in the order of ITAT regarding non-adjudication of ground raised by the appellant.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of a mistake in the order of the ITAT regarding the non-adjudication of a ground raised by the appellant in ITA No. 3874/Mum/2019 for AY 2015-16. The appellant contended that in the original order, ground No.1 raised by the revenue had not been adjudicated. The ITAT order highlighted the grounds raised before it, including issues related to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, depreciation claim, and the need for setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. However, upon review, it was found that only ground No.2 had been adjudicated, while ground No.1 remained unaddressed. The appellant's counsel acknowledged this discrepancy, leading to the conclusion that a mistake had indeed occurred in the ITAT order. Consequently, the ITAT recalled its previous order specifically to address the unadjudicated ground No.1, rectifying the oversight. As a result, the appellant's miscellaneous application was allowed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 07.02.2022.This judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that all grounds raised by parties are adequately addressed and adjudicated upon in tribunal orders. Failure to address specific issues raised can lead to the necessity of rectification to uphold the principles of natural justice and due process in legal proceedings. The acknowledgment of the oversight by the appellant's counsel and the subsequent rectification by the ITAT demonstrate a commitment to fair and thorough adjudication of all relevant matters brought before the tribunal. The recall of the order for the limited purpose of addressing the unadjudicated ground reflects a procedural step aimed at correcting the error and ensuring a comprehensive resolution of the issues raised in the appeal.