2019 (6) TMI 372 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - restoration of matter back for reconsideration - HELD THAT - The directions are contradictory and it is not clear whether the matter is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) or to the AO. When this fact was pointed out to the learned Counsel, he fairly agreed. We noted that there is mistake apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal and matter is actually restored back to the file of the AO. We direct the AO to reframe the assessment after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, MA of the Revenue is allowed

Summary

Issues:

1. Rectification of mistake requested by Revenue regarding restoration of matter to AO or CIT(A).

Analysis:

The Appellate Tribunal received a Misc. Application from the Revenue seeking rectification of a mistake in a previous order. The issue at hand was whether the Tribunal had restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) or to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Senior Departmental Representative highlighted the confusion in the directions provided by the Tribunal in the previous order. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake in its order and clarified that the matter was actually restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to reframe the assessment after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the Misc. Application of the Revenue, resolving the confusion regarding the restoration of the matter.

This judgment underscores the importance of clarity in the directions provided by the Tribunal to avoid confusion and ensure proper implementation of decisions. It also highlights the procedural aspect of rectifying mistakes in orders to uphold the principles of natural justice and fair adjudication. The clarification provided by the Tribunal regarding the restoration of the matter to the Assessing Officer emphasizes the significance of precise and unambiguous language in legal documents to prevent misinterpretation and subsequent disputes. Overall, this case serves as a reminder of the meticulousness required in legal proceedings to maintain transparency, fairness, and adherence to due process.