← All Phrases

“mistake apparent from record”

Rectification & RevisionSection 154Section 154700 judgments

The decision most relied on for mistake apparent from record is Kourani v. Union OF India (83 Taxmann.com 137), cited in 1,708 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on mistake apparent from record

Kourani v. Union OF India
83 Taxmann.com 137 · 2017 · High Court
1,708
citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E for late filing of TDS/TCS statements cannot be levied retrospectively by processing an intimation under Section 200A for defaults occurring before the amendment allowing such processing.

ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.
305 ITR 227 · 2008 · Supreme Court
470
citing judgments

Non-consideration of a decision by a jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. However, non-consideration of a non-jurisdictional High Court decision does not typically amount to such a mistake.

T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.
82 ITR 50 · 1971 · Supreme Court
382
citing judgments

A mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 must be an obvious and patent error, not one that requires a long and elaborate process of reasoning or where two opinions are conceivable. Rectification under Section 154 is not permissible for re-examining issues already considered or requiring detailed re-computation.

CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd.
228 ITR 463 · 1997 · Supreme Court
262
citing judgments

A point not examined on facts or in law cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on record for rectification purposes.

DIT v. Jacabs Civil Incorporated/ Mitsubhishi Corporation
330 ITR 578 · 2011 · High Court
115
citing judgments

Interest under Section 234B is generally not leviable on non-residents whose income is subject to tax deduction at source under Section 195, provided the non-resident assessee did not induce short or non-deduction of TDS by the payer.

CIT v. Aruna Luthra
252 ITR 76 · 2001 · High Court
87
citing judgments

Rectification under Section 154 is permissible based on a subsequent judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court. Such a judgment clarifies the law as it always stood, thereby revealing a mistake apparent from the record.

Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa
133 ITR 7 · 1982 · High Court
57
citing judgments

Debatable issues cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, as rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record.

Mepco Industries Ltd. v. CIT
319 ITR 208 · 2009 · Supreme Court
50
citing judgments

A mistake rectifiable under Section 154 must be obvious and apparent from the record, not one that requires a long process of reasoning or constitutes a mere change of opinion.

Judgments citing mistake apparent from record

Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited (Previously Known As Applabs Technologies Private Limited), Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 1793/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

learned TPO and the learned AO have erred, in not considering the rectification petition filed by the Appellant in relation to mistake apparent from record in considering the professional fees incurred pursuant to acquisition expenses as non-operating in nature. Corporate Guarantee 13. The learned TPO and the learned

Mukta A2 Cinemas Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Processing Centre-Bengaluru, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly

ITA 1453/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Dharmesh Shah
Section 154

appreciating that there is a mistake apparent on ut appreciating that there is a mistake apparent on ut appreciating that there is a mistake apparent on record resulting in double addition of income of Rs. record resulting in double addition of income of Rs. record resulting in double addition ... stating that an application for rectification rejected by the AO CPC stating that an application for rectification can be filed only to correct mistakes apparent from records. In can be filed only to correct mistakes apparent from records. In can be filed only to correct mistakes apparent from records

Everest Business Advisory India P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

ITA 331/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 244ASection 254

244A 3. Without prejudice, if jurisdiction of AO to re-determine interest u/s 244A requires examination of facts and not covered under "mistake apparent from record" u/s 154 then assessing officer should be directed to quash the order u/s 154 as it is void ab initio and assume re-determination ... through CPGRAM is hereby rejected. The CIT(A) has sustained the order of AO on the basis that 7. as there was no mistake apparent on record, petition under 154 of the Act was not maintainable. 8. We are of considered view that CIT(A) has fallen in error

Everest Business Advisory India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 7(1), New Delhi

ITA 330/DEL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 244ASection 254

244A 3. Without prejudice, if jurisdiction of AO to re-determine interest u/s 244A requires examination of facts and not covered under "mistake apparent from record" u/s 154 then assessing officer should be directed to quash the order u/s 154 as it is void ab initio and assume re-determination ... through CPGRAM is hereby rejected. The CIT(A) has sustained the order of AO on the basis that 7. as there was no mistake apparent on record, petition under 154 of the Act was not maintainable. 8. We are of considered view that CIT(A) has fallen in error

ITO, Ward-10(1), New Delhi vs. Govindajee Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1204/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Vs Govindajee Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Ward-10(1), Khasra No.562, Gadaipur Village, New Delhi. Main Gadaipur Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi.- 110 074. Pan: Aaecg1664P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate; Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca; & Shri Madhur Aggarwal & Shri Mahir Aggarwal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri T. James Singson, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 153CSection 154

bighas and 9 biswas instead of the actual land area of 6 bighas and 17 biswas or 6898 sq. yards. On considering the mistake apparent from record the AO vide u/s 154 dated 06.01.2023 has reduced the addition to Rs.85,22,67,800/- by adopting the area of property

Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD) Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 274/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Jcit (Osd), No.10/6, Lavelle Road, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 001. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaach 7551 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Akshita, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ramanathan, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Akshita, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ramanathan, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

higher figure simply by stating that the matter is sub judice. The contention of the Appellant that this is not a mistake apparent from record also does not hold water. Carry forward of loss and set off of loss are apparent from records and no debatable issues are involved here

M/S. Philips India Limited (Successor to Erstwhile Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T.(Transfer Pricing) - 2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 33/KOL/2023[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jun 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 32 & 33/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Philips India Limited Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, Tower A Vs (Transfer Pricing-Ii), Bangalore [Presently Deputy Dlf Park, 08 Block Af Commissioner/Assistant Major Arterial Road Commissioner Of Income-Tax New Town Transfer Pricing 2, Kolkata Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aabcp9487A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Even Dt. 15/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Is Relating To The Maintainability Of The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Rectification Orders Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (In Short “Tpo”) U/S 154 R.W. Sub-Section (5) To Section 92Ca Of The Act. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Impugned Orders Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Holding That As Per The Provisions Of Section 246A Of The Act, Order U/S 92Ca Or Its Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Passed By The Tpo Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 92C

would reveal that a TPO may amend the order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act for the purpose of rectification of any mistake apparent from record in such order and the provisions of Section 154 will accordingly apply. Sub- Section (5), therefore, specifically provides that the provisions of Section ... Income-tax Authority as referred to in Section 116 may amend any order passed by it with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent on record in such order. By virtue of sub-Section (5) to Section 92CA, the aforesaid powers of rectification under Section 154 of the Act have

M/S. Philips India Limited (Successor to Erstwhile Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T. (Transfer Pricing) - 2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 32/KOL/2023[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jun 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 32 & 33/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Philips India Limited Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, Tower A Vs (Transfer Pricing-Ii), Bangalore [Presently Deputy Dlf Park, 08 Block Af Commissioner/Assistant Major Arterial Road Commissioner Of Income-Tax New Town Transfer Pricing 2, Kolkata Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aabcp9487A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Even Dt. 15/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Is Relating To The Maintainability Of The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Rectification Orders Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (In Short “Tpo”) U/S 154 R.W. Sub-Section (5) To Section 92Ca Of The Act. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Impugned Orders Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Holding That As Per The Provisions Of Section 246A Of The Act, Order U/S 92Ca Or Its Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Passed By The Tpo Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 92C

would reveal that a TPO may amend the order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act for the purpose of rectification of any mistake apparent from record in such order and the provisions of Section 154 will accordingly apply. Sub- Section (5), therefore, specifically provides that the provisions of Section ... Income-tax Authority as referred to in Section 116 may amend any order passed by it with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent on record in such order. By virtue of sub-Section (5) to Section 92CA, the aforesaid powers of rectification under Section 154 of the Act have

Prem Chand Agrawal, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Dinesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

relief, he is claiming. Accordingly, assessess's case has been dismissed and no relief can be given. It is not a mistake apparent from record.” 5 Prem Chand Agrawal vs. ITO 5. As the assessee did not find any favor from the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee

Balasubramanyan Ashok, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 408/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Vaidehi .G, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Shamala .D.D, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 6Section 90

credit in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (`the Act'), cannot be said to be a mistake apparent from record rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act. The said order was passed without providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant which is against

Sumermal Pukhraj Shanklesha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4740/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Anikesh Banerjee (Jm) I.T.A. No. 4740/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14) Ito, Ward 3(2) Sumermal Pukhraj Shanklesha Vs. 1, Station Road, Narayanwadi, Kalyan. Kalyan 421301. Pan : Aonps9463C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay R. Singh & Shri Akshay Pawar Shri Dinesh A. Chourasia Department By 28.05.2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28.05.2024 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (Am) :-

Section 143(1)Section 154

rectify the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act. 4. The ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that there is no mistake apparent from record in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act against the return of income filed by the assessee. Hence the rectification petition filed ... against the return of income filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14. It is an admitted fact that there is no mistake apparent from record in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act, as the same is in accordance with the return of income filed

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2308/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India ( Formelry Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

ITA 2188/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

rate works out at Rs.5.85 per sq.ft. The assessee company cannot have any objection to such a correction, which is nothing but a mistake apparent from records. Hence the later justification forwarded by the assessee company for adopting the rate of Rs.80/- per sq.ft. as fair market value

Piem Hotels Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4407/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244Section 244ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. PRASHANT MAHARSHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ KUMAR

Rajat Apartments Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4329/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, C.A RevenueFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 56Section 80P(2)(d)

earned on deposits kept with cooperative bank was disallowed. An online rectification application was moved by the assessee on 13.12.2021 to rectify this mistake apparent from record. However, it did not yield the desired result. Yet another application was moved u/s. 154 on 22.02.2022 which also went in the failure

Rajat Apartments Co.Op. Housing Society, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4328/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, C.A RevenueFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 56Section 80P(2)(d)

earned on deposits kept with cooperative bank was disallowed. An online rectification application was moved by the assessee on 13.12.2021 to rectify this mistake apparent from record. However, it did not yield the desired result. Yet another application was moved u/s. 154 on 22.02.2022 which also went in the failure

Sangir Plastics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 202/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(iii)

returned income. Afater more than two years, ld. AO issued a notice u/s.154 on 06/02/2020 stating that there is a mistake apparent from record within the meaning of Section 154 proposing to rectify following mistake:- “(i) The tax auditor has certified an amount of Rs.32,95,767/- in tax audit

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT - 10 (1), Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6025/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand

Section 42(1)(a)Section 80Section 80I

crores. The counsel fairly stated that vide order dated 04.07.2013 framed under section 154 of the Act the Assessing Officer has rectified the mistake apparent from record and deleted the suomoto disallowance added again by the Assessing Officer amounting to %.73,71,75,163/-. Even otherwise

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5979/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand

Section 42(1)(a)Section 80Section 80I

crores. The counsel fairly stated that vide order dated 04.07.2013 framed under section 154 of the Act the Assessing Officer has rectified the mistake apparent from record and deleted the suomoto disallowance added again by the Assessing Officer amounting to %.73,71,75,163/-. Even otherwise

Asokan Thiripurasundhai, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 188/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Srinivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)

u/s.154 of the Act adjudicating the issue is without jurisdiction as the scope u/s.154 of the Act is limited, limited to rectification of mistake apparent from record and hence, he exceeded his ITA No.188/Chny/2023 & MA No.18/Chny/2023 jurisdiction. However the same issue, the Tribunal has already remitted back to the file