9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e therefore are of the opinion that if the assessee has neither raised a specific ground, nor argued it before the ITAT, the Tribunal cannot be expected to adjudicate the matter. As per Section 254(2) of the Act, the scope of MA is limited to rectify apparent mistakes in the order of ITAT. An error must be apparent on the face of record and not require extensive arguments or deliberation. As in the case of ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd [2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] has clarified that a mistake apparent from record must be obvious and patent and not something that requires investigation or arguments. As the assessee has not raised the issue as a specific ground of appeal, nor the AR argued this issue during ITAT hearing, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther, when the Applicant filed appeal before the ITAT, Chennai, Ground No.2 in Form 36 was raised with regard to non-consideration by the First Appellate Authority of the submissions made by the Applicant during first appeal, of which the plea to grant credit of TDS was predominant; * However, the Hon'ble Bench of the ITAT, while disposing the appeal filed in ITA No. 890/Chny/2024, did not adjudicate this ground and as a result, the plea of the Appellant for TDS credit remains unattended to, leading to great prejudice; * In the absence of any direction or adjudication on this aspect, the Assessing Officer has passed Order Giving Effect to the ITAT's Order without giving TDS credit, creating excess demand on the Applicant; * ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itled for credit of TDS in view of section 199 of Income Tax and the A.O is duty bound to allow the same as per Rule. Coming to the MA, we find that the assessee has not raised the specific ground for grant of TDS in Form-36 before us. The Ld. AR has also not argued this ground during the course of hearing. We therefore are of the opinion that if the assessee has neither raised a specific ground, nor argued it before the ITAT, the Tribunal cannot be expected to adjudicate the matter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Scindia steam Navigation Co Ltd [1961] 42 ITR 589 (SC) has held that the Tribunal is a judicial body and it cannot decide on issues not specifically raised before it. As per Section 254(2) of the Act, the scope o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
