2015 (1) TMI 3 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of tribunal s order - petition for rectification - Tribunal has not considered the grounds raised by the assessee in its entirety - Held that -The assessee has no grievance against the issues framed by the Tribunal and considered and adjudicated by it. While doing so, the Tribunal might not have reproduced in verbatim the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in his appeals. It is also might be true that the Tribunal might not have reproduced the contentions advanced by the learned counsel in its entirety. It is also true that it is possible that the Tribunal might not have reproduced the relevant statements of the assessee made in the paper book in its entirety. The grounds raised by the assessee in the petitions are general in nature and the petitioner is not able to point out any specific mistake apparent in the order passed by the Tribunal. The real grievance of the petitioner is that the decision of the Tribunal is against the assessee, with which we cannot help. The remedy of the assessee lies elsewhere. - Decided against the assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of grounds raised by the assessee in entirety by the Tribunal.
2. Alleged inconsistency in the narration of facts by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) with the grounds of appeal.
3. Request for the Tribunal's common order dated 9th April, 2014 to be recalled and appeals disposed of after fresh hearing.

Analysis:
1. The assessee filed miscellaneous petitions regarding the common order passed by the Tribunal in their case for multiple assessment years. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal failed to consider all grounds raised and did not evaluate the facts adequately. It was argued that the Tribunal's order suffered from serious flaws and requested a fresh hearing for the appeals to be disposed of properly.

2. During the hearing, the assessee's counsel and the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax presented their arguments. The Tribunal clarified that it had considered the issues raised by the assessee in the appeals, even though it may not have reproduced all grounds or contentions verbatim. The Tribunal emphasized that as an appeal court, it focuses on the issues raised and the supporting grounds rather than repeating every detail from lower authorities' records. The Tribunal justified its decision-making process and highlighted that the order must be supported by reasons, with no requirement to replicate every submission made.

3. The Tribunal noted that the grounds raised by the assessee were general, without pointing out any specific error in the Tribunal's order. It was observed that the essence of the petitioner's grievance was the unfavorable decision, which the Tribunal stated was beyond its scope to address. The Tribunal concluded that the petitions were akin to review petitions and thus dismissed them, affirming the original order. The judgment was pronounced in an open court session in Chennai on a specified date.