Tribunal dismisses revenue's application for lack of mistake; additional ground abandoned. Legal precedents cited.

The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the revenue as there was no mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal found that the additional ground raised by the department was not argued during the hearings and was deemed abandoned since the department did not press for its admission. Considering legal precedents and previous quashing of section 154 orders, the Tribunal concluded that admitting the additional ground would not impact the case outcome. Therefore, the Tribunal held that there was no merit in considering the additional ground at that stage.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal regarding additional ground filed by the department not considered during the assessment year 1999-2000.

Analysis:
The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax filed a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) regarding an additional ground of appeal in ITA No. 253(ASR)/2003 for the assessment year 1999-2000. The department claimed that the Tribunal did not consider the additional ground raised by the Addl. CIT, Range I, Jammu. The department requested a recall and modification of the order to hear arguments on the admission of the additional ground. However, the counsel for the assessee argued against considering the additional ground, citing previous Tribunal decisions and the quashing of orders under section 154 of the Income-tax Act in earlier assessment years. The counsel contended that the additional ground should not be entertained as the order under section 154 had already been quashed due to debatable issues.

The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and the record, finding that the ACIT, Range I, Jammu had raised an additional ground through a letter dated 2-6-2004, but it was never argued by the departmental representative during the hearings. The Tribunal noted that the learned D.R. did not press or argue for the admission or disposal of the additional ground. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that additional grounds could only be raised with the Tribunal's leave and that parties cannot argue on such grounds without admission. The Tribunal also highlighted that it is bound to decide only on the pleas argued before it. As the learned D.R. did not press for the admission of the additional ground, it was presumed that the ground was abandoned.

Considering various legal judgments and the facts of the case, the Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal noted that the revenue's main ground of appeal was based on issues related to orders under section 154, which had been quashed in previous assessment years. Therefore, even if the additional ground was admitted, it would not yield any result due to the quashing of the section 154 orders. The Tribunal dismissed the M.A. filed by the revenue, stating that there was no merit in considering the additional ground at that stage.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the M.A. as there was no mistake apparent on record, and the admission of the additional ground would not have any impact due to the quashing of the section 154 orders in previous assessment years.

---