Tribunal rectifies order due to omitted judicial pronouncements

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 crucial judicial pronouncements were omitted during the appeal's disposal, constituting a mistake apparent from the record. The order was recalled to re-adjudicate the specific ground of appeal raised by the assessee, supported by references to relevant cases. The Tribunal directed the matter to be re-fixed for further proceedings based on the reviewed 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.

---