2014 (4) TMI 1098 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - Held that - As concerning invocation and application of section 50C, was pressed by the ld. AR during hearing, raising arguments in its respect. There has thus indeed occurred a mistake by the tribunal in not adjudicating the assessee s ground # 1. We, accordingly, have no hesitation in, acceding to the assessee s prayer, recalling the assessee s appeal, since disposed of per the impugned order, for being heard afresh and decided in respect of the assessee s ground no. 1, which raises an issue separate and distinct from Ground # 2 adjudicated by the tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to adjudicate ground no. 1 in the appeal raised by the Assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 concerning the application of section 50C.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai, delivered by Shri Sanjay Arora, AM, addresses a Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Assessee regarding the disposal of their appeal for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The Assessee contended that while ground no. 2 was disposed of by the tribunal, ground no. 1 remained unadjudicated. It was clarified that ground no. 1, related to the invocation and application of section 50C, was pressed during the hearing by the Assessee's representative. The tribunal acknowledged the mistake in not adjudicating ground no. 1 and agreed to recall the appeal for a fresh hearing to decide on this specific ground, which was distinct from ground no. 2 already adjudicated. The date for the new hearing was set for June 17, 2014, without the need for separate communication or notice. No other issues were raised by the Assessee's representative, leading to the allowance of the Assessee's miscellaneous application.

In conclusion, the judgment rectified the oversight in not addressing ground no. 1 concerning section 50C raised by the Assessee during the appeal proceedings. The tribunal's decision to recall the appeal for a fresh hearing to adjudicate this ground separately from ground no. 2 demonstrates the commitment to ensuring all raised issues are properly considered and decided upon. The order was pronounced openly on April 04, 2014, emphasizing the transparency and procedural adherence in the judicial process.