2022 (6) TMI 1345 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Rectifies Mistakes in Appeals for Public Charitable Hospital

The Bhatia General Hospital Versus Income Tax Officer (OSD) (TDS) 3 (2), Mumbai

The Tribunal allowed the applications for rectification in three appeals related to Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2011-12, filed by a Public ... Rectification of mistake - Levy of interest u/s 201(1A) - on a rectification application filed by the Assessee, demand raised under Section 201(1A) of the Act was reduced to Nil. however, CIT(A) confirmed the levy of interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act for the period commencing from the date on which the tax was first deductible to the date of filing of relevant return of income by the recipient–deductee - HELD THAT:- Having perused the material on record, and the order [2019 (7) TMI 73 - ITAT MUMBAI] passed by the Tribunal, we find merit in the contention of the Assessee that Ground No. 1, 1.1, and 1.2 of the appeal have not been adjudicated which constitutes a mistake apparent on record. Accordingly, the appeal is restored for the limited purpose of adjudication of Ground No. 1, 1.1 and 1.2 of the appeal. Issues:Rectification of common order in three appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2011-12 regarding interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.Analysis:The Assessee, a Public Charitable Hospital, filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking rectification of a common order passed by the Tribunal in three appeals related to Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2011-12. The issue revolved around payments made to various entities during the relevant years. Initially, the Assessing Officer levied interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act, but on a rectification application, the demand was reduced to Nil. However, the CIT(A) upheld the levy of interest from the date of tax deduction to the filing of the recipient's income return. The Tribunal's common order dated 31.05.2019 was challenged through the present applications for rectification.Analysis - MA No. 63/Mum/2020:During the proceedings, the Assessee's Authorized Representative argued that certain submissions were not considered by the Tribunal, constituting a mistake apparent on record. The Departmental Representative contended that the appeal was dismissed with reasoned order, and no mistake existed. Upon review, the Tribunal found merit in the Assessee's contention that certain grounds were not adjudicated, leading to the restoration of the appeal for further consideration.Analysis - MA No. 64/Mum/2020 and MA No. 65/Mum/2020:The facts and issues in the appeals for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2011-12 mirrored those of the 2008-09 assessment. As a result of the findings in MA No. 63/Mum/2020, the appeals for subsequent years were also restored for the limited purpose of adjudicating specific grounds. The Tribunal directed the Registry to schedule hearings for all three appeals, thereby allowing the present applications and pronouncing the order on 01.06.2022.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the applications for rectification, restoring the appeals for further consideration based on the identified mistakes in the initial order. The detailed analysis of each Miscellaneous Application highlighted the specific grounds for restoration, ensuring a fair and comprehensive review of the issues raised by the Assessee.