2019 (8) TMI 560 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 254 - non consideration of certain grounds - HELD THAT - It is relevant to observe, in the appeal order itself, the Tribunal has recorded the submissions of the Departmental Authorities to the effect that all the grounds raised by the Revenue in the appeals are covered by the decisions of the Tribunal and Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee s own case as well as in case of another Insurance Company viz., ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s ACIT, 2012 (11) TMI 13 - ITAT MUMBAI In fact, in course of hearing of the present applications also, learned Counsels appearing for the parties have agreed that all the grounds raised by the Revenue, including grounds no.2, 3 and 6, are covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, there is an inadvertent mistake by the Tribunal in not disposing of grounds no.2, 3 and 6, which comes within the ambit of mistake apparent on the face of record as per section 254(2) of the Act, hence, requires rectification. Since, there is consensus between the parties that grounds which have not been decided earlier are also covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case but which could not be decided inadvertently, we proceed to dispose of them in terms of earlier decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case. - Misc. applications are allowed

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistakes in the order dated 23rd August 2017 in ITA no.4078 & 4079/Mum./2015.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed applications seeking rectification of mistakes in the order dated 23rd August 2017, where grounds no.2, 3, and 6 were not adjudicated by the Tribunal. Both the Departmental Representative and the Assessee's Representative agreed that these grounds were covered by previous decisions. The Tribunal acknowledged the inadvertent mistake and the consensus between the parties that the issues were covered by the Tribunal's decision in the Assessee's own case and proceeded to dispose of them accordingly.

In grounds no.2 and 3, the Revenue challenged the applicability of the unamended Insurance Act, 1983 with reference to section 44 of the Act and Rule-2 of the First Schedule. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the computation of surplus as per actuarial valuation. It was held that the actuarial valuation should be done in accordance with the unamended Insurance Act, 1938, and not the IRDA Regulations, as the legislative intent was to apply the unamended provisions to life insurance business.

Regarding ground no.6, the issue of income arising in the shareholder's account was raised. The Tribunal decided that this income should be assessed under the head income from business, following previous decisions in the Assessee's own case and the ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. case. The Tribunal dismissed this ground as it was of academic importance and did not require further adjudication.

The appeal order dated 23rd August 2017 was modified to address the issues raised by the Revenue, and the miscellaneous applications seeking rectification were allowed. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court on 2nd August 2019.