Miscellaneous Application No.14/Chny/2022 (in ITA No.817/Chny/2020) िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s.N.C.Rajagopal & Co., 22, V. Krishnaswamy Avenue, Luz Church Road, Mylapore, Chennai. v. The Dy. Commissioner- of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore. [PAN: AAAFN 0572 A] (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.I. Dinesh, Adv. यथ क ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.06.2022 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed present Miscellaneous Application u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.817/Chny/2020 dated 09.03.2022 and relevant assessment year 2017- 18. 2. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee narrated the facts and mistakes stated to आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI ी वी. दुगा राव, माननीय ाियक सद एवं ी जी. मंजूनाथा, माननीय लेखा सद के सम BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.14/Chny/2022 (in ITA No.817/Chny/2020) :: 2 :: be apparent on record from the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.817/Chny/2020 dated 09.03.2022 and relevant contents of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. For this Year, the Petitioner filed a Return of Income on 07.10.2017 admitting a total income of Rs.2,94,52,927/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s.143(1) of the IT Act assessing the income at Rs.2,97,66,591/- and made the following the additions/disallowances; a. Disallowance of Car Expenses Rs. 4,316 b. Disallowance of Club Expenses Rs. 99,549 c. Disallowance of Club Subscription Rs. 2,09,799 d. Short Credit of TDS Rs.12,24,800 2. Aggrieved by the order of AO the Petitioner filed an appeal before CIT(A) challenging all the above issues. Without adverting to the Written Submissions filed by the Petitioner/Assessee, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in a summary manner. 3. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), further appeal was filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal in ITA No. 817 of 2020 and raised several grounds challenging the impugned order. 3. During the course of hearing, the Petitioner made detailed arguments pertaining to all issues raised in the grounds of appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. In support of the arguments, the Petitioner also filed a paper book dated 28.02.2022 running about 49 pages referring to financials filed. After hearing the arguments advanced by the Petitioner, the appeal was marked HEARD on 02.03.2022. 4. This Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated 09.03.2022 had adjudicated the issues relating to the Car Expenses, Club Expenses and Club Subscription only but didn't advert to ground Nos. 3.1 to 3.4 relating to short credit of TDS. The relevant grounds are extracted as under; 3.1 The CIT(A) erred in upholding the short credit for TDS without adverting to the detailed submissions in the form of statement showing TDS credit from A.Ys. 2014-15 to A.Y.2017-18. 3.2 The CIT(A) erred in observing that only TDS mentioned in Form- 26AS alone would be allowed credit. This exhibits his ignorance; more particularly the provisions of Secs. 199 and 200 of the IT Act. 3.3 The CIT(A) failed to note even the ROI asks for details like this: (8) Amount out of (6) or (7) being claimed this year (only if corresponding income is being offered for tax this year) MA No.14/Chny/2022 (in ITA No.817/Chny/2020) :: 3 :: 3.4 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant follows cash system of accounting and credit for TDS can be claimed only in the year in which there is actual receipt of fees. 5. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to recall the order dated 09.03.2022 in ITA No.817/Chny/2020, in so far as the above grounds alone and post the same for hearing and hear the appeal on merits and pass any other order(s) as deem fit and thus render justice. 3. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that there is a mistake in the order of the Tribunal in as much as the Tribunal by an inadvertent error failed to adjudicate Ground Nos.3.1 to 3.4 on the issue of short credit for TDS claimed by the assessee and rejected by the AO and said error constitutes a mistake apparent on record, which needs to be rectified u/s.254(2) of the Act. 4. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, fairly agreed that the Tribunal has omitted to adjudicate Ground Nos.3.1 to 3.4 and thus, the same may be considered in accordance with law. 5. Having heard both the sides and considered the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, we are of the considered view that there is a mistake in the order of the Tribunal in as much as in not adjudicating Ground Nos.3.1 to 3.4 of the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal on the issue of short credit for TDS claimed by the assessee and rejected by the AO, and further, said error constitutes a mistake apparent on record, which can be rectified u/s.254(2) of the Act. Hence, we recall the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.817/Chny/2020 dated MA No.14/Chny/2022 (in ITA No.817/Chny/2020) :: 4 :: 09.03.2022 qua Ground Nos.3.1 to 3.4 only and directed the Registry to post the appeal for hearing on any convenient date and inform both the parties. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is treated as allowed. Order pronounced on the 30 th day of June, 2022, in Chennai. Sd/- ( वी. दुगा राव) (V. DURGA RAO) याियक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- (जी. मंजूनाथा) (G. MANJUNATHA) लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, दनांक/Dated: 30 th June, 2022. TLN आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 4. आयकर आयु"/CIT 2. यथ /Respondent 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 3. आयकर आयु" (अपील)/CIT(A) 6. गाड फाईल/GF