2021 (9) TMI 413 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - original order passed by this Tribunal contains certain mistake of facts and law - judicial precedents relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner as well as arguments advanced do not find place in the impugned order passed by this Tribunal - HELD THAT - The petitioner had not filed the decisions relied upon by her at the time of hearing. Secondly, there is no material on record indicating that the counsel for the petitioner had relied upon these decisions and brought to specific the notice of the Bench. It is settled position of law that it is not mandatory to deal with each and every decision relied upon by either of the parties to the case unless otherwise they were specifically brought to the notice of the Bench. Further, this issue requires examination, arguments to establish as to how these decisions are identical to issue on hand. Therefore, the points which are considered to be mistake apparent from the record by the petitioner does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. Thus, the present Miscellaneous Petition is totally misconceived and liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification order passed by Tribunal, Grounds for rectification, Non-appearance of petitioner, Opposing the petition, Review of impugned order, Mistake of facts and law, Dismissal of Miscellaneous Petition.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) filed by the assessee seeking rectification of an order passed by the Tribunal. The grounds for rectification included the absence of certain judicial precedents in the original order, the handling of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, and the assumption of concessions made by the petitioner. Despite multiple adjournments and notices, the petitioner did not appear, leading the Tribunal to presume lack of interest in pursuing the M.A. The Senior Departmental Representative (Sr.DR) opposed the petition, arguing that it was an attempt to review the impugned order under the guise of a rectification petition, which is impermissible under Sec.254(2) of the Act.

The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments, found that the M.A. was filed on the premise that the original order contained mistakes of facts and law. However, it noted that the petitioner had not submitted the relied-upon decisions during the hearing and failed to specifically bring them to the notice of the Bench. The Tribunal emphasized that it is not obligatory to address each decision unless they are explicitly highlighted. The Tribunal concluded that the alleged mistakes pointed out by the petitioner did not qualify as mistakes apparent from the record. Consequently, it deemed the M.A. as misconceived and rejected it, leading to the dismissal of the Miscellaneous Petition.

In the final pronouncement, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee on the grounds that the alleged mistakes in the original order did not meet the criteria for rectification. The judgment highlights the importance of providing relevant material and arguments during proceedings and emphasizes the limitations of rectification petitions under the provisions of the Act.