आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी वी दुगाŊ राव Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद˟ के समƗ Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manjunatha, G., Accountant Member M.P. No. 41/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No.893/Chny/2019] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Moon Star Beach Resorts (P) Ltd., Flat No. 6, 14, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. [PAN:AAECM2763M] Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(1) Chennai. (Petitioner) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) Petitioner by : Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 22.09.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: By means of present Miscellaneous Petition, the assessee seeks to recall the order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 893/Chny/2019 dated 14.10.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15. 2. By referring to the petition, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that ground No. 3 raised in the appeal of the assessee was not adjudicated by the Tribunal while concluding its appeal order is a mistake M.P. No.41/Chny/23 2 apparent in the order and prayed for adjudicating the ground raised by the assessee. 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that there is no mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the order passed by the Tribunal dated 14.10.2022 and also perused the petition filed by the assessee. When the appeal was originally taken up for hearing, the very same counsel appeared in the matter has not pressed ground No. 3. Therefore, the ITAT has not adjudicated the ground. By referring to the petition, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated that even after the assessee’s Authorized Representative has not pressed the ground during the course of hearing, the ITAT ought to have been adjudicated the ground and for this preposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.M. Salgocar & Bros v. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugoa & Anr. in Appeal (Civil) No. 4662-4663 of 1999 dated 31.03.2005. We have perused the above case law and find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the order in the context of Limitation Act and have no application to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee is dismissed. M.P. No.41/Chny/23 3 5. In the result, the MP filed by the petitioner is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22 nd September, 2023 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA, G.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 22.09.2023 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF.