2014 (8) TMI 1196 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - Entitlement for deduction u/s. 80IA denied - HELD THAT - Tribunal has dismissed the assessee s appeal 2010 (10) TMI 1206 - ITAT MUMBAI by relying on the decision of Larger Third Member Bench in the case of B.T. Patil Sons Belgaum Construction Private Ltd. 2013 (11) TMI 197 - ITAT PUNE . This decision was subsequently recalled and was finally decided in favour of the assessee by relying on the decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. 2010 (2) TMI 108 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Thus, an apparent mistake has been crept in the order of Tribunal dated 27-10-2010, which is amenable to rectification u/s.254(2) - we recall the order passed by the Tribunal and direct the Registry to fix the appeal for hearing on merits. Registry is also directed to issue fresh notice to both the parties. Miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of apparent mistake in the Tribunal's order dated 27-10-2010 dismissing the assessee's appeal.
2. Contradictory decisions of the Larger Third Member Bench and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court regarding deduction u/s.80IA.
3. Application of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for rectification of the Tribunal's order.

Analysis:
1. The miscellaneous application was filed regarding the Tribunal's order dated 27-10-2010, which dismissed the assessee's appeal based on the decision of the Larger Third Member Bench in a specific case. The learned counsel pointed out a subsequent contradictory decision by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in another case. The AR argued that the Tribunal's reliance on the Larger Third Member Bench decision led to an apparent mistake in dismissing the appeal. The coordinate Bench's decision in a similar case was also cited to support the assessee's claim for deduction u/s.80IA.

2. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and acknowledged the mistake in its previous order dated 27-10-2010. It was noted that the Tribunal had recalled a similar order in the past and decided in favor of the assessee based on the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's decision. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the apparent mistake in the order was rectifiable under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Following the precedent set in a previous case, the Tribunal decided to recall the order and directed the Registry to schedule a fresh hearing on the merits, issuing notices to both parties.

3. The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, recognizing the need for rectification due to the contradictory decisions and the subsequent clarification provided by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. The order for recalling the previous decision and setting the appeal for a fresh hearing on merits was pronounced on 8th August 2014. This judgment highlights the importance of rectifying apparent mistakes in orders to ensure fair and just decisions based on the latest legal interpretations and precedents.