2019 (1) TMI 13 - AT - Income Tax

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 ... Claim of deduction under section 10B - alternate claim of deduction under section 10A - mistake apparent from the record - expunction/rectification of Tribunal orderAlternate claim of deduction under section 10A - mistake apparent from the record - expunction/rectification of Tribunal order - Whether the last sentence of Para No.10 of the Tribunal's order in ITA No.510/PUN/2015 requiring reference to absence of a ground regarding the alternate claim under section 10A should be expunged or corrected - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the assessee's appeal (ITA No.510/PUN/2015) raised grounds only in respect of the claim under section 10B and did not include any ground challenging the alternate claim allowed by the CIT(A) under section 10A. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that mention of the alternate claim was unnecessary, observing that an assessee should have anticipated a Revenue appeal when an alternate claim is allowed and therefore ought to have informed the Tribunal of its existence. However, on examination, the Tribunal concluded that the use of the word 'clear' in the last sentence of Para No.10 - stating that 'there is no clear ground with regard to the alternative claim of deduction u/s.10A of the Act' - was an erroneous expression and amounted to a mistake apparent from the record. Deletion of that word was held to be a clerical/linguistic correction which did not affect the substantive direction to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for lack of a speaking order. The Tribunal therefore directed deletion of the word 'clear' from the said sentence and disposed of the Miscellaneous Application pro tanto. [Paras 7]The word 'clear' in the last sentence of Para No.10 of the Tribunal's order in ITA No.510/PUN/2015 is deleted as a mistake apparent from the record; the Miscellaneous Application is partly allowed and disposed pro tanto.Final Conclusion: The Miscellaneous Application is partly allowed: the Tribunal corrected its own order by deleting the word 'clear' from Para No.10 as a mistake apparent from the record, without altering the substantive direction restoring the matter to the CIT(A). 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.