2012 (10) TMI 566 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - order of ITAT - miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal - Amount received on account of time sharing units is to be taxed in the year of receipt when services are to be rendered by the assessee in subsequent years also - Held that - Amount/ Income relates to admission fee or entrance fee in the case of club and does not relate to the receipt under a time sharing arrangement and is a revenue Income- No mistake in the order of the Tribunal which requires rectification on this issue - ground raised in the miscellaneous petition by revenue is dismissed.

Issues:
1. Rectification of written order by the Tribunal regarding the dismissal of appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue.
2. Consideration of binding decisions by the Tribunal while arriving at the decision.
3. Allegation of a mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's order due to non-consideration of Supreme Court/High Court decisions.
4. Typographical error in the Tribunal's order leading to confusion in the disposal of the appeal.
5. Application of decisions related to admission and entrance fees to the issue of receipt under a time-sharing arrangement.

Issue 1: Rectification of Written Order
The Revenue filed a miscellaneous petition seeking the rectification of the Tribunal's written order, claiming that the order did not align with the oral pronouncement made in court. The Revenue argued that the written order incorrectly allowed Ground No.2 raised by the assessee, which contradicted the oral pronouncement of the dismissal of both appeals. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found no mistake in the written order but acknowledged a typographical error in para 19, rectifying it to reflect that the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

Issue 2: Consideration of Binding Decisions
The Revenue contended that the Tribunal did not consider binding decisions of the Apex court and High Courts while arriving at its decision. However, the Tribunal clarified that the decisions cited were duly considered and discussed in the order. It was noted that the decisions related to admission and entrance fees, not directly applicable to the issue of receipt under a time-sharing arrangement. The Tribunal dismissed the ground raised by the Revenue on this issue.

Issue 3: Allegation of Mistake in Tribunal's Order
The Revenue alleged a mistake apparent from the record due to the Tribunal's non-consideration of Supreme Court/High Court decisions. The Tribunal, after thorough examination, concluded that the decisions were not directly relevant to the issue at hand, as they pertained to admission and entrance fees, unlike the receipt under a time-sharing arrangement. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the claim of a mistake in its order on this issue.

Issue 4: Typographical Error in Tribunal's Order
The Tribunal acknowledged a typographical error in para 19 of its order, leading to confusion in the disposal of the appeal. While the Tribunal had allowed Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal, the written order incorrectly stated that both appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal rectified this error to accurately reflect that the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, ensuring clarity in the order.

Issue 5: Application of Decisions on Admission and Entrance Fees
The Tribunal analyzed the applicability of decisions related to admission and entrance fees to the issue of receipt under a time-sharing arrangement. It was observed that the decisions cited by the Revenue focused on fees in the context of clubs, not directly relevant to the present case. The Tribunal found no mistake in its order concerning this issue and dismissed the ground raised by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue, upholding its original order and clarifying the rectification made for the typographical error. The Tribunal affirmed its decision regarding the disposal of the appeals and the consideration of relevant legal precedents, maintaining the integrity of the judgment.

← Previous Next →