9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 333 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 254 - only contention raised by learned AR of the assessee that the Tribunal is not correct in saying that no argument was advanced regarding ground No.4 of the original grounds of appeal - HELD THAT - No evidence could be brought on record by learned AR of the assessee in this regard to establish that arguments were in fact advanced by learned AR of the assessee in respect of ground No.4 of the original grounds of appeal filed by the assessee. CIT (A) has decided the issue about R D Segment as per para 7 to 7.9.7.1 of his order running from pages 9 to 25 of the order of CIT (A) and as per our log Book, no reference was made by the learned AR of the assessee to para 7 to 7.9.7.1 of the order of CIT (A) where he decided the issue about R D Segment by way of detailed discussion in 16 17 pages hence, the order about this issue is not cryptic and in ground No. 4 of the Original grounds raised before the tribunal, the issue raised is about R D segment and hence, we find no apparent mistake in this finding of the tribunal that no argument was made by the learned AR of the assessee about R D Segment and hence, there is no apparent mistake in the tribunal order regarding the inference that Ground No. 4 is also not pressed. Hence, we hold that there is no merit in the MP filed by the assessee.
Issues:
1. Alleged apparent mistakes in the impugned Tribunal order under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Consideration of revised grounds of appeal filed by the assessee. 3. Decision on grounds pressed by the assessee during the appeal. 4. Allegation of non-decision on a specific ground by the Tribunal. 5. Evaluation of evidence regarding arguments advanced by the assessee. 6. Review of the Tribunal's decision on R & D and Lithium segments. 7. Assessment of the Tribunal's finding on the alleged mistakes in the order. Analysis: 1. The Miscellaneous Petition (MP) was filed by the assessee, claiming apparent mistakes in the Tribunal order that needed rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the Tribunal had overlooked the revised ground of Appeal filed by the Appellant, leading to discrepancies in the order. 2. During the hearing, it was revealed that although the assessee had filed revised grounds before the Tribunal, the learned AR of the assessee had endorsed pressing only specific grounds from the original appeal. The Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal based on the original grounds, disregarding the revised submissions made by the assessee. 3. The Tribunal clarified that certain grounds were not pressed by the assessee during the appeal, leading to a focused decision on the remaining issues. The Tribunal's decision to reject certain grounds as not pressed was based on the representation made by the learned AR of the assessee during the appeal proceedings. 4. The assessee raised concerns about the Tribunal's decision on a specific ground related to the R & D segment, alleging non-decision on this matter. However, the Tribunal maintained that the grounds not pressed by the assessee were duly considered, and no apparent mistake was found in the decision-making process. 5. Both parties presented their arguments regarding the alleged mistake in the Tribunal order. The assessee failed to provide concrete evidence supporting their claim that arguments were advanced on the specific ground concerning the R & D segment during the appeal proceedings. 6. The Tribunal reviewed the decisions related to the R & D and Lithium segments, emphasizing the need for a detailed and reasoned order in cases where the CIT (A) rulings were considered cryptic. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter concerning the Lithium segment for fresh consideration by the CIT (A). 7. After thorough evaluation of the arguments and evidence presented, the Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent mistake in the impugned order that warranted rectification under section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld its decision, dismissing the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee.
|
