2019 (6) TMI 1648 - AT - Income Tax

Reduction of Profit eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB(10) whilst computing Book Profits u/s 115JB - HELD THAT - Tribunal did not adjudicate the same and dismissed the grounds treating the same to be merely academic in nature. The assessee as well as revenue contested the order of Tribunal for AY 2010-11 before Hon'ble Bombay High Court wherein the Hon ble Court, 2017 (6) TMI 1361 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for adjudication in view of the fact that the grounds were not adjudicated. The copy of the order has been placed on record. In the above background, it has been submitted that the non-adjudication of ground in impugned AY would constitute mistake apparent from record and therefore, suitable directions may be given to rectify the same. The Ld. DR fairly conceded the same. Upon careful consideration, the undisputed position that emerges is the fact that similar issue as stated in Ground A, arose in assessee s case for AY 2010-11 which was dismissed as academic in nature by the order of Tribunal 2014 (2) TMI 1154 - ITAT MUMBAI . Upon further appeal by the assessee as well as department, the order of the Tribunal was quashed by Hon ble Bombay High Court and set aside for readjudication The controversy being pari-materia the same and in view of the fact that the assessee is not in further appeal with respect to Ground No. A, respectfully following the directions of jurisdictional High Court in AY 2010- 11, we are of the considered opinion that Ground No. A of the appeal would require adjudication. Therefore, we recall the observations of Tribunal in 2016 (3) TMI 907 - ITAT MUMBAI with respect to Ground No. A. The same would be taken up for re-adjudication in regular course.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification application time limit under section 254(2) - Whether application time-barred or within the prescribed limit.
Adjudication of Ground No. A in the appeal - Whether non-adjudication constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis:
1. Rectification Application Time Limit under Section 254(2): The judgment addresses the issue of the time limit for filing a rectification application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The application in question was filed beyond six months from the date of the Tribunal order, leading to a contention that it was time-barred. However, the Tribunal noted that at the time of the order, the prescribed time limit for filing such an application was four years. The Finance Act, 2016 reduced this period to six months effective from 01/06/2016. As the application was filed within the original four-year limit, the Tribunal found it valid and proceeded to consider its merits.

2. Adjudication of Ground No. A in the Appeal: The judgment delves into the issue of non-adjudication of Ground No. A in the appeal, which pertained to the reduction of profit eligible for deduction under section 80-IB(10) while computing Book Profits under section 115JB of the Act. The Authorized Representative for the assessee argued that the dismissal of these grounds in the Tribunal order was a mistake apparent from the record, citing a similar issue in the previous assessment year that was remitted back to the Tribunal by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court for adjudication. The Tribunal acknowledged the similarity in the issues and the High Court's directive to adjudicate such grounds, leading to the decision to recall the observations of the Tribunal in the previous order and re-adjudicate Ground No. A in the regular course.

3. Conclusion: The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the rectification application time limit and the non-adjudication of Ground No. A in the appeal. By considering the legal provisions and the precedents set by the High Court, the Tribunal ensures a fair and just adjudication process, highlighting the importance of rectifying apparent mistakes and upholding the principles of judicial review. The decision to re-examine Ground No. A demonstrates the Tribunal's commitment to addressing all relevant issues raised by the parties in a thorough and impartial manner, ultimately aiming to uphold the integrity of the legal process and ensure justice for the parties involved.