2019 (8) TMI 1438 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record or not - HELD THAT - Considering the material referred by the assessee in his submission and the material fact that Cross Objection of the assessee was dismissed on the ground that it was not pressed we allow the miscellaneous application of the assessee to this limited extent however the assessee to be adjudicated a fresh after considering the material referred by the assessee. Since there is no specific adjudication of the assessee and it is required to be adjudicated specifically by speaking order therefore we consider that there is apparent mistake in the order of ITAT for adjudicating the C.O. No. 41/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee. Accordingly miscellaneous application of the assessee is allowed to the extent of correcting the finding of the ITAT. Miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Adjudication of ground of appeal by the Revenue
- Non-adjudication of Cross Objection (C.O.) filed by the assessee

Adjudication of Ground of Appeal by the Revenue:
The Appellate Tribunal, ITAT Ahmedabad, addressed a miscellaneous application filed by the assessee against a previous decision. The application highlighted the reference to a specific case and the dismissal of a ground of appeal by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the decision in question related to the assertion that steam is not considered power for a particular section. The Tribunal observed that the Co-ordinate Bench had dismissed the Cross Objection of the assessee, stating it was not pressed. However, the application argued that the decision in the referenced case was crucial for the Cross Objection filed by the assessee for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal acknowledged the argument made by the assessee, emphasizing that steam should be considered power. The Tribunal pointed out that the Revenue had not appealed on this specific ground, leading to the conclusion that steam is indeed a form of power. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench supported the assessee's position, and the grounds in the Cross Objection should have been allowed in favor of the assessee.

Non-adjudication of Cross Objection (C.O.) filed by the assessee:
The Tribunal further delved into the issue of the non-adjudication of the Cross Objection filed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Cross Objection for the relevant assessment year was against the finding that steam is not power. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee had raised specific grounds in the Cross Objection, arguing that steam should be considered power for deduction under section 80IA. Despite the initial dismissal of the Cross Objection on the grounds of not being pressed, the Tribunal recognized that the argument presented by the assessee, supported by legal precedents, warranted a fresh adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of rectifying any mistakes in the order, especially when it concerns crucial legal interpretations. The Tribunal underscored the need to consider the facts and laws involved in the matter, rather than relying solely on concessions made during the proceedings. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application of the assessee, directing a fresh adjudication of the Cross Objection while correcting the findings related to the Revenue's ground of appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal, ITAT Ahmedabad, highlighted the importance of addressing legal arguments thoroughly and ensuring that all relevant grounds of appeal and objections are adjudicated appropriately. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a meticulous review of legal interpretations and the application of precedents to reach just and accurate decisions in tax matters.