2022 (6) TMI 1344 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal's Misinterpretation Corrected: Grounds of Appeal Not Withdrawn

M/s. Shark Mines & Minerals Pvt Limited Versus Pr. CIT, Cuttack

The Tribunal erred in dismissing certain grounds of appeal due to misinterpretation and lack of proper withdrawal authorization. The authorized ... Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - CIT justification in invoking jurisdiction u/s.263 and modifying the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) under 'Limited Scrutiny' category in conformity with CBDT instructions on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and valuation of closing stock when the same was not the subject matter of 'Limited scrutiny' in the assessment completed u/s.143(3) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. HELD THAT:- A perusal of the appeal, more specifically the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, shows that at the side of grounds No.2 & 3, it is mentioned as “Not. P”, however, it is not signed by either the assessee or the authorised representative. The Vakalatnama in case of the AR was verified. The said Vakalatnama does not give any power to the authorised representative to withdraw the appeal. This being so, as the director of the assessee company has specifically filed an affidavit that he has not authorised to withdrawal of the grounds as also the fact that he was present to the court and the grounds were not withdrawn as also on the ground that the Vakalatnama of the authorised representative, who represented the assessee in the appeal originally does not have authority to withdraw the grounds, we are of the view that there is a mistake apparent from the order of the Tribunal insofar as grounds No.2 & 3 have been which have been recorded as not pressed. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal passed [2021 (5) TMI 398 - ITAT CUTTACK] for the assessment year 2014-2015 in the case of the assessee stands recalled only for the purpose of the adjudication of the grounds No.2 & 3 of the grounds of appeal. Issues involved:1. Misinterpretation of grounds of appeal by the Tribunal leading to dismissal of certain grounds.2. Discrepancy regarding the withdrawal of specific grounds of appeal.3. Lack of authority for withdrawal of grounds by the authorized representative.Analysis:1. The judgment concerns a miscellaneous application filed by the assessee against the Tribunal's order in ITA No.128/CTK/2019, dated 10.05.2021. The issue arose when the Tribunal, in its order, mentioned that the assessee did not press grounds No.2 & 3 of the appeal, resulting in their dismissal as not pressed. The authorized representative (AR) argued that the grounds were not withdrawn and presented an affidavit from the company director confirming the same.2. The AR contended that there was a mistake apparent from the record as the grounds were not adjudicated despite not being withdrawn. The Tribunal noted that although the grounds were marked as 'Not. P' in the appeal, they were not signed by either the assessee or the authorized representative. Additionally, the Vakalatnama of the AR did not grant the authority to withdraw the appeal. The director's affidavit further supported the claim that the grounds were not withdrawn during the proceedings.3. The Tribunal considered the submissions and concluded that there was indeed a mistake in the order regarding the treatment of grounds No.2 & 3. As the grounds were not withdrawn, and the authorized representative lacked the authority to do so, the Tribunal recalled its order for the limited purpose of adjudicating these grounds. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, emphasizing the need for proper authorization and adherence to procedural requirements in appeal proceedings.4. The judgment highlights the importance of procedural compliance and the significance of explicit authorization when dealing with the withdrawal or pressing of grounds in appellate proceedings. It underscores the need for clarity and adherence to legal formalities to ensure fair and accurate adjudication of appeals.