TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 352
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant has received order of the Hon'ble Bench dated 14.09.2012 passed in above case, whereby the appeal of the assessee was not accepted. On careful study of the order the appellant has noticed that there are following apparent mistakes in the order of the Hon'ble Bench which requires a rectificatory order to be passed correcting the mistakes :- Para 9 page 10 of the order which deals with the conclusion of the decision is reproduced from Page. 11 as under:- It is true that the assessee had disclosed the transaction regarding sale of Mill and also relating to sale of mill in the computation of income filed with the return of income. But k it has failed to show as to why and how the claim was bonafide. It is an undeniable fact that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on was being claimed. No depreciation was ever claimed after A.Y. 1987-88 and WDV worked out at the end of A.Y. 1987-88 was taken to be WDV while working out capital gains in A.Y. 1995-96. The assessee was under bonafide belief that after 7 years of closure of Mill, while no depreciation is being claimed or allowed, the surplus is assessable as long term capital gains. 2. In para 9 page 12 of the order, the Hon'ble IT AT has discussed issue relating to lease money being taxed on receipt basis in earlier year and found no reason for change in the method of accounting. Here it is submitted that there is no change in accounting method. The assessee has received advance lease money for ginning of Narma. An advance is no income. In earlier yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant seeks amendment of the order accordingly." 2. We have heard rival submissions and have also considered the written submissions. We extract the written submission of ld. AR in toto, as under :- "With reference to above it is submitted that the appeal of the assessee has been decided by the Hon'ble Bench. At the time of passing the order, Hon'ble Bench has fails to decide the additional ground of appeal which was raised vide letter dated 16.7.2012, which also includes the submission in the paper book with Form No. 36. In this respect it is also submitted that the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax fails to dispose off the grounds. Beside the other ground taken in the memo of appeal was also not disposed off. As regards the grounds it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er for decision afresh amount to review ? Findings No. Reasoning Where a Tribunal fails to notice the question raised before it inadvertently under any misapprehension, in correcting such error by recalling the order made without deciding such question which goes to the root of the matter for deciding the same appropriately falls in such category of procedural mistakes which such Tribunal must correct ex debito justitiae, even in the absence of any power. The present case falls in that class. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. If the arguments were not considered is also covered under the definition of mistake apparent from record. As regards the argument, in this re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ground raised in the memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal was not at all considered by the Tribunal. Taking the view that commission to consider the ground raised in the appeal was a mistake apparent from the record, the Tribunal set aside the order passed thereby and fixed the date for a rehearing. On these facts, the Revenue has raised the following question in an application made under section 256(2) : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was in law justified in recalling their order dated July 2,1987, in I.T.A. No. 2113(All.)/1984, with a direction to rehear the case which was passed by them after a careful consideration of all the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue ? It is urged b....