2016 (12) TMI 116 - HC - Income Tax

Rectification application - Held that - The impugned order while disposing of the rectification application states that the factual matrix was considered and conclusion was arrived at on the basis of the facts placed before them. The attempt on the part of the petitioner is to seek a review of the order so as to ensure that the Tribunal takes a look at the documents which were part of the record and may not have emphasized by the petitioner during the course of the hearing. All this must be considered in the context of the Tribunal recording in its order that the primary submissions of the petitioner was inadequate opportunity to present its case before the lower Authorities. This fact has not in terms been disputed in the rectification application. Moreover, it needs to be pointed out that today we have by a separate order in Notice of Motion have condoned the delay in filing the appeal under Section 260A of the Act from order dated 26th October, 2015 of the Tribunal. In that appeal before the Tribunal we note that an additional ground taken up viz. of not being afforded sufficient opportunity by the lower authority to explain its case. In the above view, the impugned order dated 17th June, 2016 passed by the Tribunal rejecting the petitioner s application for rectification cannot on the present facts be found fault with.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition challenging order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal seeking rectification.
2. Allegation of incorrect recording of facts by the Tribunal.
3. Failure to present documentary evidence before the Tribunal.
4. Dispute over emphasis on specific documents during the hearing.
5. Lack of opportunity to present the case before lower authorities.
6. Delay in filing appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order seeking rectification under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Tribunal dismissed the application for rectification of the order dated 26th October, 2015, leading to the present petition.

2. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal incorrectly recorded facts in the order dated 26th October, 2015. The application for rectification highlighted that necessary documentary evidence was available to substantiate the petitioner's claim, contrary to the Tribunal's recording.

3. The High Court noted that the order of 26th October, 2015 was pronounced in open court with representatives from both sides present. The petitioner's claim of inability to substantiate with documentary evidence was not adequately addressed in the rectification application.

4. There was a dispute regarding the emphasis on specific documents during the hearing. The petitioner claimed that certain pages of the paper book substantiated their case, but it was unclear if these were brought to the Tribunal's attention during the appeal hearing.

5. The petitioner alleged inadequate opportunity to present its case before lower authorities, a fact not disputed in the rectification application. The High Court considered this aspect along with a separate order condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Section 260A.

6. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's order rejecting the petitioner's application for rectification on the grounds that the factual matrix was considered, and the conclusion was based on the facts presented. The petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.