2020 (1) TMI 991 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT - Tribunal has disposed of the appeal of the assesee ex-parte for non appearance of the assessee. The contentions of the assessee is that there is an error in the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as in disposing of penalty appeals when the quantum appeal was pending before the Ld.CIT(A). We find that when the quantum appeal is pending before the lower authorities disposing of penalty appeal on the same issues on which penalty has been levied would constitute a mistake apparent on record. Therefore we are of the considered view that there is a merit in the miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee and accordingly the order of the Tribunal is recalled and the appeals are posted for hearing on 26/02/2020 for which no separate notice will be issued to either parties.

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of the Tribunal dated 08/02/2017 in ITA No's. 750 to 753/Mum/2014 for AY's 2005-06 to 2008-09.
- Alleged mistakes apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal.
- Consideration of penalty appeal while quantum appeal was pending before the CIT(A).

Analysis:
1. The assessee filed miscellaneous applications u/s 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 against the Tribunal's order dated 08/02/2017. The applications highlighted mistakes apparent on record, specifically regarding the disposal of penalty appeals while the quantum appeal was pending. The contentions were that the penalty order should have been kept in abeyance until the quantum appeal's disposal.

2. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's applications, noting that disposing of penalty appeals when the quantum appeal is pending constitutes a mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal acknowledged the error in the original order and decided to recall the order in ITA No's. 750 to 753/Mum/2014. The appeals were set for a new hearing on 26/02/2020 without issuing separate notices to the parties.

3. The decision to recall the order was based on the principle that when the quantum appeal is unresolved, deciding on penalty matters on the same issues may lead to errors. The Tribunal's action aimed to rectify the oversight and ensure a fair consideration of both the quantum and penalty aspects of the case.

4. The assessee's reliance on previous court decisions supporting the Tribunal's power to rectify orders under section 254(2) was instrumental in the Tribunal's decision to recall the order and provide an opportunity for a fresh hearing. The recall of the order and the scheduling of a new hearing demonstrated the Tribunal's commitment to upholding justice and addressing procedural errors effectively.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal's decision to recall the order and allow for a new hearing showcased a commitment to fairness and adherence to legal principles. By acknowledging the mistake apparent on record and providing an opportunity for a reevaluation of the penalty appeals in light of the pending quantum appeal, the Tribunal ensured a just and thorough consideration of the case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision to recall the order in ITA No's. 750 to 753/Mum/2014 due to mistakes apparent on record and the subsequent scheduling of a new hearing exemplified a commitment to procedural fairness and justice in the adjudication of the case. The detailed analysis and consideration of the interplay between the quantum and penalty appeals underscored the Tribunal's dedication to upholding legal principles and ensuring a comprehensive review of the issues involved.

← Previous Next →