IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, AM & SRI N.V.VA SUDEVAN, JM ] M.A.NO.104/KOL/2015 (A/O C.O.NO.90/KOL/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-0 9 D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-38, -VS.- M/S. P.B.ENTE RPRISE KOLKATA KOLKATA [PAN : AAKFP 1758 N] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : MD.GHAYAS UDDEN, JCIT, SR.D R FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI MANISH KR. MUNDRA, FCA DATE OF HEARING : 03.06.2016. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.06.2016. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE AFORESAID MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT PRAYING FOR RECTIFICATION OF CERTAIN APPAR ENT ERRORS IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL PASSED IN C.O.NO.90/KOL/2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO .1236/KOL/2012 BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13.05.2013. 2. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THAT THE CROSS OBJECTION HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 6 AS FOLLO WS :- 6. THE ISSUE REGARDING FORM 15I HAS NOT BEEN DELIB ERATED UPON BY THE CIT(A) AND ISSUE RAISED IN CROSS OBJECTION READS AS UNDER: 1) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHIL E REPRODUCING LETTER DATED 15-02-2012 OF AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (A/R) IN PAGES-3 AND 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING AND NOT REPRODUCING LAST PARAGRAP H OF THE SAID LETTER, WHICH IS GIVEN BELOW : - COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT, COPIES OF FORM NO. 15 1 (IN TWO SETS), COPY OF CHALLAN UNDER TAN AND COPY OF 15J ARE SUBMITTED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. 2) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THAT THE ASSESSEE-HEREIN WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS (TAX D EDUCTED AT SOURCE) ON LORRY HIRE CHARGES PAID OF RS.41,90,994/-, AS PAYEES SUBMITTED FORMS NO.15I TO THE ASSESSEE HEREIN (COPIES OF FORMS NO.15I IN DUPLICATE SUBMITTED TO L D. CIT(A) AND ONE SET OF FORM NO.15I FORWARDED BY LD. CIT(A) TO LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FO R REMAND REPORT)AND THEREFORE, 2 M.A.NO.104/KOL/2015 A/O C.O.NO.90/KOL/2012 M/S. P.B.ENTERPRISE A.YR.2008-09 2 DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) MADE FOR SAID PAYMENT OF RS.41,90,994/- IS WRONG DUE TO THIS REASON ALSO. SINCE THIS ISSUE HAS NOT DELIBERATED UPON BY CIT(A) , IT REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF CIT(A) AND CIT(A) HAS TO GIVE A SPEAKING O RDER ON THE SAME. CROSS OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO IN TERMS OF ABOVE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 3. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THAT THE ISSUE WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION BUT IN THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE CROSS OBJECTION OF ASSESSE E IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO. THE REVENUE HAS, THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION , SOUGHT RECTIFICATION OF THE AFORESAID APPARENT ERROR BY CLARIFYING THAT THE WOR D AO IN THE LAST LINE OF PARA-6 OF THE ORDER SHOULD BE RECTIFIED TO READ AS CIT(A) . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE RECTIFICATION SOUGHT FOR BY THE RE VENUE. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS DIRECTED TO BE RECTIFIED AS SUGGESTED B Y THE REVENUE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 4. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION O F THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 03.06.2 016. SD/- SD/- [P.M.JAGTAP] [ N.V.VASUDEVAN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 03.06.2016. [RG PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.M/S. P.B.ENTERPRISE, 42, MAHENDRA GOSWAMI LANE, K OLKATA-700006. 2. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE0-38, KOLKATA. 3. CIT(A)-XXIV, KOLKATA 4. CIT-XIII, KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES 3 M.A.NO.104/KOL/2015 A/O C.O.NO.90/KOL/2012 M/S. P.B.ENTERPRISE A.YR.2008-09 3