Court sets aside ITAT order, directs adjudication on additional grounds, emphasizes Tribunal's power for justice.

The Court set aside the ITAT's order dismissing the M.A. seeking adjudication on additional grounds related to disallowance of advances and MAT credit. It directed adjudication on outstanding issues due to the petitioner's withdrawal of appeal, emphasizing the Tribunal's power under Section 254(2) to rectify errors for justice and fair play. The Court held that this power extends to errors brought to its notice by parties, amending the order to address the unresolved issues raised in Ground Nos. 6 and 7.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissing Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) seeking adjudication on additional grounds.
2. Invocation of power under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to rectify mistakes apparent on the face of the record.
3. Failure to adjudicate on outstanding issues raised in Ground Nos. 6 and 7 due to withdrawal of appeal by the petitioner's counsel.
4. Need for setting aside the ITAT's order and directing adjudication on outstanding issues.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the ITAT's order dismissing M.A. No. 555/Del/2019 seeking adjudication on additional grounds, specifically Ground Nos. 6 and 7 related to disallowance of advances and additional MAT credit. The petitioner withdrew the appeal due to resolution of transfer pricing adjustment issues for AY 2011-2012 through an Advance Pricing Agreement with the revenue.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the ITAT could have rectified the mistake under Section 254(2) of the Act, citing the Lachman Dass Bhatia Hingwala case. The judgment highlighted the Tribunal's power to rectify errors for justice and fair play, emphasizing the importance of rectification to avoid injustice.

3. The respondent's counsel was given time to examine the cited judgment. It was noted that no counter-affidavit was filed, and the issues raised in Ground Nos. 6 and 7 were not adjudicated by the ITAT due to the appeal withdrawal.

4. The Court held that the power under Section 254(2) is not limited to mistakes by the Tribunal but extends to errors brought to its notice by the parties. The failure to raise outstanding issues before the ITAT led to the order's amendment, setting aside the ITAT's decision and directing adjudication on Ground Nos. 6 and 7.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, detailing the arguments presented by both parties and the Court's decision based on the applicable legal provisions and precedents cited.

---