Mistake Apparent on Record: non adjudication of documented grounds led to order being set aside and appeal restored for rehearing.

Non-adjudication of substantive, documented submissions and issuance of a non-speaking or incomplete order constitutes a mistake apparent on the record requiring recall and restoration of the appeal for rehearing; the Tribunal failed to decide specific grounds including aggregation of duplicate/triplicate diary entries, acceptance of third-party diary material without independent corroboration, and alleged mechanical approval and misapplication of the penal tax provision, and did not examine the affidavit of the diary's author or supporting documentary chart - those issues must be considered afresh and the impugned order is set aside with the appeal restored and the miscellaneous application allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned Tribunal order dated 02.07.2024 contained mistakes apparent on record warranting setting aside and restoration of the appeal; (ii) Whether specific grounds including non-adjudication of submissions on duplicate/triplicate diary entries, acceptance of third-party diary entries without independent corroboration, and alleged mechanical approval under Section 153D and misapplication of the penal tax provision required adjudication on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned order dated 02.07.2024 contains mistakes apparent on record justifying its recall and restoration of the appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal recorded submissions in paras 10 and 11 but did not adjudicate those points and expressly stated that no other point was argued. The record shows that substantive grounds supported by documents and case law were placed before the Tribunal and were not considered. Coordinate authority and precedents establish that non-consideration of detailed submissions and a non-speaking dismissal can constitute a mistake apparent on the record warranting recall for adjudication on merits.

Conclusion: The impugned order contains a mistake apparent on record and is set aside; the appeal is restored to its original number for rehearing.

Issue (ii): Whether the grounds concerning aggregation of duplicate/triplicate diary entries, acceptance of a third-party diary without independent corroboration, and the alleged mechanical approval under Section 153D and misapplication of tax provision required fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The record reflects that ground no.3 (aggregation of Rs. 42,98,086 as duplicate/triplicate entries) and submissions regarding the diary entries and lack of DIN/valid approval under Section 153D were not addressed on merits. The Tribunal failed to examine the affidavit of the diary's author, the documentary chart showing duplicates, and issues raised about legal validity of the assessing instruments and tax provision applicability. Jurisprudence requires independent consideration of such matters and that acceptance of third-party material without corroboration is legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The identified factual and legal issues were not adjudicated and must be considered afresh; the decision on these grounds is set aside in favour of rehearing, which benefits the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order dated 02.07.2024 is unsustainable for failure to decide substantial grounds and is set aside; the appeal is restored for fresh hearing on the issues identified, and the miscellaneous application under Section 254(1) and Rule 34A is allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to consider and adjudicate substantive, documented grounds and rendering a non-speaking or incomplete order constitutes a mistake apparent on the record warranting setting aside and restoration of the appeal for fresh adjudication on merits.

---