Tribunal grants partial appeal due to incomplete order, directs deletion of error, restores issue for further review

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes due to the CIT(A) not providing a speaking order on all issues raised by the assessee. The assessee's Miscellaneous Application seeking deletion of a reference to the alternate claim of deduction u/s.10A was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the deletion of an erroneous word in the order. The Tribunal's decision was not affected by the reference to u/s.10A, and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a speaking order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance of deduction u/s.10B of the Act by AO.
2. CIT(A) allowing alternate claim of deduction u/s.10A but rejecting u/s.10B.
3. Tribunal partly allowing appeal for statistical purposes.
4. Absence of reference to alternate claim of deduction u/s.10A in Tribunal's order.
5. Miscellaneous Application seeking deletion of reference to u/s.10A claim.
6. Disagreement between Ld. Counsel for assessee and Ld. DR for Revenue.
7. Tribunal's decision on deletion of the last sentence in Para No.10 of the order.

Analysis:
1. The appeal arose from the disallowance of deduction u/s.10B by the AO. CIT(A) allowed the alternate claim of deduction u/s.10A but upheld the disallowance u/s.10B. Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes due to the CIT(A) not providing a speaking order on all issues raised by the assessee.

2. The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking the deletion of a reference to the alternate claim of deduction u/s.10A in the Tribunal's order. The Ld. Counsel argued that as the grounds revolved around u/s.10B, there was no need to raise the u/s.10A claim, which was already allowed by CIT(A).

3. The Ld. DR for the Revenue opposed the deletion, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decision was not affected by the reference to u/s.10A. The Ld. DR also noted that the assessee should have informed the Tribunal about the Revenue's likely appeal.

4. The Tribunal observed that the assessee should have anticipated the Revenue's appeal against the u/s.10A claim allowed by CIT(A). The Tribunal found an error in the last sentence of Para No.10, where the word "clear" was erroneously used. The Tribunal directed the deletion of this word, stating it as a mistake apparent from the record.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the deletion of the word "clear" did not impact the decision to restore the issue to the CIT(A) for a speaking order. The Miscellaneous Application was disposed of pro tanto, and the assessee's application was partly allowed.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and the Tribunal's decision regarding the deletion of a reference in the order.

---