2017 (3) TMI 1752 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - non admission of additional grounds of appeal - HELD THAT - We find that as per Order Sheet dated 30/3/2016, there is no mention of additional ground even in the order sought to be rectified. There is no mention of such additional grounds. As contended by the assessee that these grounds were raised before the Bench. However, the same were not adjudicated. After considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, we recall our order 2016 (4) TMI 1355 - ITAT JAIPUR to the extent of admission of additional grounds. Therefore, the appeal is to be fixed for hearing for admission of additional grounds. It appears that inadvertently, there is no mentioning of additional grounds. Therefore, this is an apparent mistake from the record requires rectification. The application is disposed of as indicated above.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Non-adjudication of additional ground in the Tribunal's order.
2. Dismissal of the appeal based on the genuineness of the agreement.
3. Misinterpretation of the meaning of 'land appurtenant to the building' by the CIT(A).
4. Seeking rectification of the Tribunal's order through a Miscellaneous Application.

Issue 1: Non-adjudication of additional ground in the Tribunal's order
The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of the Tribunal's order as the additional ground crucial to the appeal was not considered. The counsel highlighted that the first additional ground challenged the reliance on an Inspector's report without providing the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake of not mentioning the additional grounds in the order and, in the interest of justice, recalled the order for admission of these grounds, allowing the appeal to be fixed for a hearing on the additional grounds.

Issue 2: Dismissal of the appeal based on the genuineness of the agreement
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the questionable genuineness of the agreement dated 2/6/2011, which was not previously an issue raised by the Department or challenged by the authorities below. The Tribunal's decision was criticized for not providing the appellant an opportunity to explain this new issue, leading to an unjust dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal acknowledged this apparent mistake and allowed the appeal to be reconsidered in light of the omitted facts and points at issue.

Issue 3: Misinterpretation of the meaning of 'land appurtenant to the building' by the CIT(A)
The CIT(A) misinterpreted the meaning of 'land appurtenant to the building,' which was vehemently disputed by the appellant in an additional ground. However, the Tribunal did not provide a specific finding on this interpretation, resulting in a non-speaking and non-well-reasoned order. The appellant sought a reconsideration of this issue, emphasizing the need for a proper examination of the definition of 'land appurtenant to the building' as propounded by the CIT(A).

Issue 4: Seeking rectification of the Tribunal's order through a Miscellaneous Application
The Miscellaneous Application was allowed, and the Tribunal's order was recalled to rectify the non-adjudication of additional grounds, providing an opportunity for the appellant to argue afresh on the omitted facts and points at issue. The Tribunal recognized the need for rectification in the interest of equity and natural justice, ensuring a fair hearing for the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur in the case, focusing on the errors in the original order and the subsequent rectification through the Miscellaneous Application.