2019 (7) TMI 850 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 254(2) - one of ground was not disposed - HELD THAT - In the present case since the appeal against the order of the Tribunal has already been admitted and a substantial question of law has been framed by the Hon'ble High Court, the Tribunal cannot proceed with the Miscellaneous Application u/s 254(2) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid facts and following the decision cited above, the Miscellaneous Application u/s 254(2) of the Act seeking rectification in the order of Tribunal is hereby dismissed, being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-adjudication of ground No.12 in the appeal by the Tribunal.
2. Maintainability of the second Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) by the assessee.
3. Tribunal's authority to entertain an application u/s 254(2) of the Act when an appeal has been filed before the High Court.
4. Interpretation of legal precedents regarding the Tribunal's power in such situations.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the non-adjudication of ground No.12 by the Tribunal in the appeal. The assessee contended that the Tribunal did not address this ground, which was never withdrawn, and sought rectification through a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

2. The second issue pertains to the maintainability of the second M.A. filed by the assessee, considering the dismissal of a previous M.A. The assessee argued that since the earlier M.A. did not address the issue of non-adjudication of ground No.12, the Bench had the authority to hear and decide the matter in the second M.A.

3. The Tribunal considered whether it could entertain the M.A. under section 254(2) of the Act when an appeal had been filed before the High Court. The assessee relied on legal precedents to support their contention that the Tribunal could rectify the order despite the appeal pending before the High Court.

4. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of R.W. Promotions Pvt. Ltd. to analyze the Tribunal's power in similar situations. However, it distinguished the facts of the present case from the cited precedent, emphasizing the importance of the specific circumstances in determining the Tribunal's authority to entertain rectification applications.

5. Citing the judgment in the case of Subhlakshmi Vanijya (P.) Ltd.vs CIT, the Tribunal highlighted the significance of considering the unique facts of each case. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Muni Seva Ashram to support its conclusion that once an appeal has been admitted and substantial questions of law framed, the Tribunal cannot proceed with a rectification application.

6. Based on the legal principles and precedents discussed, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, stating that since the appeal had been admitted and substantial questions of law framed by the High Court, the Tribunal could not proceed with the rectification under section 254(2) of the Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was guided by the specific circumstances of the case, legal precedents, and the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act regarding the Tribunal's authority to rectify orders in light of pending appeals before the High Court.