2019 (5) TMI 630 - HC - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 254 - non passing of specific order on second part of the additional grounds - genuineness of the agreement - HELD THAT - Tribunal has erred in law in not passing any specific order on second part of the additional grounds as noted above. We are therefore inclined to set aside order to the extent of second part of the additional grounds and direct that the application filed by the appellant-assessee shall stand allowed in toto with respect to both the parts of the additional grounds as we are informed that the appeal that was restored for hearing on first part of the additional grounds, has not been decided yet, may now be heard and decided on both the grounds.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing writ petition filed by the appellant, regarding the Tribunal recalling its earlier order to hear on additional grounds.

Analysis:
The appellant-assessee filed an appeal challenging the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, which dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. The writ petition was filed to challenge the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, whereby the Tribunal recalled its earlier order to hear additional grounds. The appellant's counsel argued that while the rectification application was allowed on the first part of the additional grounds, the Tribunal did not give any finding on the genuineness of the agreement dated 02.06.2011, despite expressing doubts. The respondent's counsel did not dispute that no argument was raised by the Revenue on this aspect before the Tribunal. The High Court noted that the appellant had filed an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act on two parts of the additional grounds. The first part related to findings based on an Inspector's Report, while the second part highlighted an error in dismissing the appeal based on the genuineness of the agreement, which was not an issue raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal failed to pass any specific order on the second part of the additional grounds, leading the High Court to set aside the order and allow the application in its entirety.

The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in law by not addressing the second part of the additional grounds raised by the appellant. Consequently, the Court directed that the appellant's application be allowed in full regarding both parts of the additional grounds. The Court noted that the appeal, which was restored for hearing on the first part of the additional grounds, had not been decided yet and should now be heard and decided on both grounds. The appeal was disposed of with the aforementioned directions, providing relief to the appellant-assessee in the matter.