2014 (8) TMI 110 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of order Mistake apparent on record Held that - Even though copy of a letter purporting to file additional grounds has been furnished - copy of the letter furnished as evidence of the claim, does not bear any authentic stamp/seal with the signature of the recipient of the Registry of the Tribunal, with whom it might have been filed, and secondly and more importantly, it does not contain the enclosure, viz. the additional grounds sought to be raised - evidence furnished cannot be taken as clinching to support the version of the applicant - The position also corroborated by the contentions of the counsel for the assessee during the course of these rectification proceedings, the contention of the Revenue of having raised any additional grounds during the course of appeal proceedings before the Tribunal or any mistake in the order of the Tribunal on account of non-consideration of grounds, is devoid of merit. The assessee has to share 15% of the gross maintenance receipts collected during the year with the owner of the building i.e. Deep Corporation Pvt. Ltd and taking into account the stipulation made in the agreement it is a diversion of income at source and not an expenditure in the hands of the assessee - the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the AO in invoking the provisions of section 40a(ia) Decided Partly in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification/recall of the consolidated order related to the appeal for assessment year 2007-08, Mistakes apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal dated 11.10.2013.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification/recall of the Tribunal's order dated 11.10.2013 concerning its appeal for the assessment year 2007-08. The Revenue contended that mistakes apparent from the record had crept into the order, specifically related to additional grounds raised during the appellate proceedings. The Revenue argued that certain grounds were not disposed of by the Tribunal, which was considered a mistake warranting rectification. The Tribunal had reproduced a paragraph from the CIT(A)'s order in its decision, which was deemed irrelevant to the issue at hand, indicating another mistake in the record that required rectification.

The Revenue claimed to have raised additional grounds during the appeal proceedings, but the Tribunal found no convincing evidence to support this contention. The Tribunal noted that the evidence provided lacked authenticity and did not contain the additional grounds sought to be raised. Upon examining the matter further, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's claim of raising additional grounds or any mistake in the order due to non-consideration of such grounds lacked merit and was thus rejected. However, the Tribunal acknowledged an error in reproducing an incorrect paragraph from the CIT(A)'s order in its own decision and rectified this mistake by substituting the correct paragraph.

In light of the discussions and findings, the Tribunal partly accepted the Revenue's Miscellaneous Application and rectified the order dated 11.10.2013 to address the identified mistakes. The order was pronounced in court on 23rd July 2014, ultimately partially allowing the Revenue's application for rectification.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of rectification/recall of the Tribunal's order and the mistakes apparent from the record, providing a thorough examination of the arguments presented by the parties and the Tribunal's decision on each issue.