Judicial decisions must consider relevant precedents to avoid errors apparent from the record under section 254(2).

ORDER

PER MANJUNATHA. G, AM:

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.262/Chny/2017 dated 22.11.2023, and relevant assessment year 2010-11.

2. The assessee has narrated the facts of its case and mistakes stated to be apparent on record from the order of the Tribunal dated 22.11.2023 and relevant contents of Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee for the AY 2010-11 in ITA No.262/Chny/2017 are reproduced as under:

1. The Applicant refers to an order dated 22.11.2023 of the Hon'ble Income Ta? App"e11ate Tribunal ( ITA T) in respect of the Department's appeal in No 262/Chny/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11.

2.The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant is a Limited Company engaged in the business of investment and providing management consultancy services. For the subjected year, its return was filed on 4.10.2010 declaring a loss of Rs.2,84,10,249 under normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs.20,55,23,364 u/s 115JB of the Act. The Applicant's case has been selected for scrutiny assessment which has been completed vide order dated 28.3.2013 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) assessing the income at Rs.75,97,44,330/- under normal provisions of the Act. The difference between returned income and assessed income was inter alia on account of determining the capital gain at Rs. 29,43,26,189/- on sale of shares of M/s. TVS Finance and Services Limited to TVS e-Access India Limited [TAIL]. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the Applicant filed an appeal before CIT(A) who deleted the addition vide order dated 18.10.2016. Being aggrieved, the department filed appeal before Your Honours which has been disposed off vide order dated 22.11.2023 confirming the action of the AO and setting aside the decision of the CIT(A).

3.Brief facts of the case, as explained in the assessment proceeding as well as during appellate proceeding including before Your Honours are as under:

3.1 The Applicant company and M/s. TVS Motor Company Limited (TML) were the promoters of a company named as M/s. TVS Finance and Services Limited being a listed company [TFSL]. For the detailed reason stated at paragraphs 17 and 18 of the impugned order, the promoters decided to delist the shares of TFSL whereby the first requirement was to buy the shares from the public. It was agreed between the Applicant and TML that the Applicant will buy entire shares from the public and thereafter recover the proportionate amount or cost from TML and transfer the proportionate shares to TML which is bought from the public. Accordingly, following the regulatory guidelines for acquiring the shares from public, the Applicant paid Rs. 31.19/- per shares for buying shares from the public. As agreed, the Applicant transferred 7,04,349 of shares of TFSL to TML for Rs. 31.19 per shares. In the same year, the Applicant sold remaining shares of TFSL to TAIL for Rs. 0.01 per share. The AO recomputed the capital gain on sale of Shares to TAIL by substituting the selling price at Rs. 31.19 as against the sales price of Rs. 0.01 per share considered by the Applicant. The AO held that the transaction of selling the shares at Rs. 0.01 per shares is to avoid the taxes as the Applicant has sold land in the subjected year on which it has earned huge capital gain. The addition has been deleted by the CIT(A). However, Your Honours have confirmed the action of the AO in holding that the transaction is sham and entered to avoid the tax. While holding so, few facts have been stated in the order which are factually incorrect and constitute apparent mistake from recor