2017 (8) TMI 1475 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - Held that - In view of above corrections carried out in para 38 at page 20 of the order, corrected para 38 be read as under 38. Grounds No. 2 and 3.1 of the CO require no adjudication being academic in nature. Grounds No. 3.2, 3.3 and 5 of the CO were not pressed by Ld. Authorised Representative. Grounds of appeal No. 6 and 7 being general are dismissed. Thus, we are left with only Ground of appeal No. 4 which relates the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the adjustment of ₹ 78,72,507/- to the value of international transactions in respect of export of IC engines by the LHP Division. However, with these corrections there would be no change in the final result of the appeal and the cross objections.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of errors in the order of Tribunal regarding grounds raised in appeal and cross objections.

In this judgment, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT PUNE addressed a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee seeking rectification in the order dated 29-01-2016, which adjudicated ITA No. 594/PN/2013 of the Revenue and Cross Objection No. 53/PN/2014 by the assessee. The assessee contended that certain observations made by the Tribunal in para 38 of the order were erroneous, specifically regarding the grounds of appeal No. 2, 3, and 5 of the cross objections. The Tribunal had noted that these grounds were not pressed, but the assessee argued that the issues raised in these grounds were indeed addressed during the proceedings. The Tribunal had decided in favor of the assessee on some issues, leading to the need for rectification in the observations made. The arguments presented by the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) were recorded in the order, highlighting the connection between the grounds raised by the Revenue and the assessee.

Furthermore, the AR of the assessee emphasized that submissions were made in respect of ground No. 3.1 raised in cross objections regarding procurement support services, which were erroneously mentioned as not pressed by the Tribunal. The AR argued that these services should be aggregated with the manufacturing function under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) due to their close link to the main manufacturing activity. The Department representative admitted the connection between the grounds raised by the Revenue and the assessee and had no objection to the proposed rectifications. The Tribunal acknowledged the interrelation of the grounds raised by both parties and agreed that the observations made in para 38 of the order needed correction to accurately reflect the arguments presented during the proceedings.

Conclusively, the Tribunal corrected the observations in para 38 of the order, stating that certain grounds required no adjudication as they were academic in nature. The corrected version clarified the status of the grounds raised in the cross objections and the appeal, ensuring that the final result of the appeal and cross objections remained unchanged despite the rectifications. Ultimately, the Miscellaneous Application by the assessee seeking rectification was allowed by the Tribunal, and the order was pronounced on a specified date.