"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.57/Del/2022 (in ITA No.1262/DEL/2021) (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Prime Comfort Products (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT, CPC, C/o Raj Kumar & Associates, Bengaluru. L – 7A (LGF), South Extension Part II, Delhi – 110 074. (PAN: AAFCP2306Q) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT/ASSESSEE BY : Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.05.2025 Date of Order : 30.05.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : 1. This misc. application is filed by the applicant/assessee against the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.1262/Del/2021 dated 28.02.2022 for Assessment Year 2018-19 on the ground that there is a mistake apparent on record and accordingly, prayed to recall the order to the extent of recalling ground no.3 raised in the aforesaid appeal. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that ITAT vide order dated 28.02.2022 has decided grounds no.1 & 2 raised by the assessee in the appeal. He submitted that ld. counsel, Shri Raj Kumar, CA at the time of hearing of the appeal argued ground no.3 raised by the assessee and filed written synopsis also and it was also addressed 2 MA No.57/Del/2022 by the ld. DR. Accordingly, he submitted that following ground no.3 raised by the assessee in the appeal was not adjudicated :- “3. That under the facts and circumstances, Ld. AO at CPC, erred in law as well as on merits in making addition of Rs.16,56,509/- u/s 40(a)(ia) (8,28,254 + 8,28,254) more so, Rs.8,28,254/- already stands self added in computation hence by making again addition of Rs.16,56,509/-, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for the same amt. stands made 03 times, one time by the assessee suo moto and two times by CPC u/s. 143(1).” 3. Ld. AR submitted that it is a mistake apparent on record for not adjudicating aforesaid ground no.3 and accordingly prayed that the order dated 28.02.2022 may be recalled to the extent of adjudicating aforesaid ground no.3. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue did not object to the aforesaid proposition. 5. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the coordinate Bench has decided grounds no.1 & 2 relating to ESI/PF raised in the appeal but ground no.3 was not adjudicated. The non-adjudication of ground no.3 is a mistake apparent on record. Therefore, we are inclined to recall the order to the extent of adjudicating ground no.3 raised by the assessee in the appeal and direct the Registry to fix the case for hearing in due course for adjudication of ground no.3 only. 6. In the result, the misc. application filed by the assessee is allowed as above. Order pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of May, 2025 after the conclusion of the hearing. Sd/- sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 30.05.2025 TS 3 MA No.57/Del/2022 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "