2019 (7) TMI 362 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rectifies order due to omitted judicial pronouncements

Mukund Limited Versus The Income Tax Officer-3 (2) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai

The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application for rectification under sub-section (2) of Sec. 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was found that ... Rectification u/s 254(2) - failure to take cognizance of certain judicial pronouncements - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that the non-consideration of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and that of a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, which were specifically relied upon by the counsel for the assessee during the course of the hearing of the appeal, therein constitutes a mistake apparent from record, which renders the order passed while disposing off the appeal in context of the issue under consideration amenable for rectification under sub-section (2) of Sec. 254. Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations, the order passed by the Tribunal is recalled for the limited purpose of re-adjudicating the “Ground of appeal No. 3” after considering the aforesaid two judicial pronouncements viz. (i) The CIT Vs. M/s Bajaj India Ltd. [2009 (4) TMI 931 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] ;and (ii) Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd Vs. ACIT [2006 (9) TMI 226 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B] . The miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed and, the registry is directed to re-fix the matter in terms of our aforesaid observations. Issues:Rectification under sub-section (2) of Sec. 254 of the Income-tax Act,1961 based on the omission of certain judicial pronouncements during the disposal of appeal.Analysis:The applicant filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification under sub-section (2) of Sec. 254 of the Income-tax Act,1961, contending that the Tribunal's order contained a mistake apparent from the record. The authorized representative argued that the Tribunal failed to consider specific judicial pronouncements during the appeal, including references to cases like CIT Vs. M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. and Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd Vs. ACIT. These omissions were claimed to be crucial for the appeal's outcome. The application highlighted that the copies of these judicial pronouncements were part of the assessee's paper book. The applicant emphasized that the failure to consider these references constituted a mistake that warranted rectification.The Departmental Representative opposed the application, asserting that the Tribunal had already considered all aspects on merits during the appeal's disposal. However, upon review, it was found that the Tribunal indeed overlooked the judicial pronouncements cited by the applicant during the appeal. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake in not considering the references to the High Court and the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, which were crucial to the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the omission constituted a mistake apparent from the record, making the order amenable for rectification under sub-section (2) of Sec. 254 of the Act. The order was recalled for the limited purpose of re-adjudicating the specific ground of appeal that was raised by the assessee.Additionally, the Tribunal noted that although the applicant had also referred to other judicial pronouncements like CIT Vs. Khaitan Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. and Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. in the paper book, these were not relied upon during the appeal hearing. As a result, the Tribunal decided to recall the order solely for the purpose of re-examining the specific ground of appeal that was initially raised and supported by references to The CIT Vs. M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. and Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd Vs. ACIT.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, directing the registry to re-fix the matter for further proceedings based on the observations made during the review. The order was pronounced in the open court on 03.07.2019.