2020 (4) TMI 855 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - mistake apparent on record - reliance placed by the Tribunal on the decision in the matter of Bovis Lend Lease (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 2009 (8) TMI 853 - ITAT BANGALORE which was not cited or discussed by either the applicant or the respondent at any stage nor mentioned by the Hon ble Members during the original hearing AND even when the appeal was re-fixed for clarifications by the Tribunal amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, suffers from patent mistakes apparent from record - HELD THAT - There is merit in the submission of the Ld. counsel that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the decision in the matter of Bovis Lend Lease (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which was not cited or discussed by either the applicant or the respondent at any stage nor mentioned by the Hon ble Members during the original hearing before the Tribunal or even when the appeal was re-fixed for clarifications by the Tribunal amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the impugned order suffers from patent mistake apparent on record. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in Inventure Growth Securities Ltd. v. ITAT 2010 (5) TMI 99 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , the finding arrived at in the impugned order on the basis of the decision in Bovis Lend Lease (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) should have been brought to the notice of the concerned parties. Inadvertently, the Bench failed to bring to the notice of the parties the above decision. MAs are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Recall of ITAT order based on alleged violation of principles of natural justice and mistakes apparent from record.

Analysis:
The applicant filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking the recall of the ITAT order dated 07.10.2019 for AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17. The applicant contended that the reliance on a specific decision not cited or discussed by either party or the Tribunal, and the failure to consider the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the applicant's own case, amounted to a violation of natural justice and mistakes apparent from the record. The applicant also highlighted the non-consideration of RBI Regulations/Guidelines, conditions of section 194C of the Income Tax Act, and the adequacy of documents filed. The applicant urged the Tribunal to recall the order, rectify the mistakes, and adjudicate the appeal on merits.

The Departmental Representative argued that a minor rectification was needed in the order but contended that there were no mistakes apparent from the record. The Tribunal examined the submissions and the impugned order, which had set aside the CIT(A)'s decision due to incomplete documents filed by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the need for relevant documents to decide on the issue at hand. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's argument regarding the reliance on a specific decision without prior notice to the parties, citing a precedent emphasizing the importance of bringing such reliance to the parties' attention. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled its order and directed the case to be heard before a regular Bench after informing both parties.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Applications, recalling the previous order and scheduling a new hearing before a regular Bench. The decision was based on the acknowledgment of the oversight in relying on a specific decision without notifying the parties, aligning with the principles of natural justice and ensuring a fair adjudication process.