Rectification of apparent error and limited recall granted for unadjudicated TDS credit and section 205 grounds.

An admitted error in the figures of interest income, commitment fees and agency fees in an earlier ITAT order was treated as a mistake apparent from the record and rectified to match the figures in the rectification and giving-effect orders. The Tribunal also found that grounds relating to TDS credit and the effect of section 205 of the Income-tax Act had not been adjudicated earlier, so the order was recalled only to that limited extent for disposal of those remaining grounds. The miscellaneous application was accordingly allowed, with correction of the recorded amounts and limited restoration of the matter for the unaddressed TDS issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the quantum figures of interest income, commitment fees and agency fees recorded in the earlier order required rectification as a mistake apparent from the record. (ii) Whether grounds relating to TDS credit and the effect of section 205 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had remained undisposed of, warranting recall of the order for limited adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether the quantum figures of interest income, commitment fees and agency fees recorded in the earlier order required rectification as a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The figures stated in the earlier order did not tally with the correct figures emerging from the rectification and giving-effect orders placed on record. The error was admitted by the other side, and the correction was confined to the amounts of the three income streams already dealt with in the original order.

Conclusion: The figures were rectified to the correct amounts, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether grounds relating to TDS credit and the effect of section 205 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had remained undisposed of, warranting recall of the order for limited adjudication.

Analysis: The record showed that grounds relating to credit for tax deducted at source and the legal consequence under section 205 had not been adjudicated in the earlier order. Since the omission was accepted, the proper course was to recall the order only to the extent necessary to dispose of those grounds.

Conclusion: The order was recalled for limited consideration of the unadjudicated grounds, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous application succeeded, the monetary figures in the earlier order were corrected, and the matter was restored only for deciding the remaining TDS-related grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: An admitted error in stated figures and omission to decide raised grounds can be corrected by rectification and limited recall, while undisposed substantive grounds must be adjudicated on remand.

---