Dy. Comm. of Income-tax, Satara V. Loknete Balasaheb Desai S.S.K. Ltd., Satara

MA 125/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7575 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-12-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MITHALI MADHUSMITHA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI I C SUDHIR AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, MA 125/PN/2011 ARISING OUT OF M.A. NO. 146/PN/2009 IN ITA NO. 292 TO 298, 200, 300, 301, 920 & 921/PN/2005 A.Y. 1990-91 TO 1996-97, 1997-98, 1999-00, 2000-01, 1998-99 AND 2001-02 DY. CIT SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA APPLICANT VS. LOKNETE BALASAHEB DESAI SSK LTD., A/P DAULATANAGAR (MARALI), TAL. PATAN, DIST. SATARA PAN AAAAB 0362 K K RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : MS. MITHALI MADHUSMITHA RESPONDENT BY : NONE ORDER DATE OF THE HEARING: 09-12-2011 DATE OF THE PRONOUNCEMENT: 04-01-2012 PER D KARUNAKARA RAO AM DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, VIDE THE PRESENT MISC APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 05-09-2011, IT IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT WHILE PASSING THE MA ORDER VIDE MA NO. 146/PN/2009 ARISING ON THE ITA NO. 292 TO 298, 200, 300, 301, 920 & 921/PN/2005 A.Y. 1990-91 TO 1996-97, 199 7-98, 1999-00, 2000-01, 1998-99 AND 2001-02 DATED 23-2-2010, SOME TYPOGRAPH ICAL MISTAKES CREPT IN WITH REFERENCE TO THE DETAILS OF THE AYS. 2. ON A PERUSAL OF THE SAID MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON, WE FIND THAT THE MA BEARS AY 2004-05 ERRONEOUSLY AND THE CORRECT ASSESS MENT YEARS SHOULD BE A.Y. 1990-91 TO 1996-97, 1997-98, 1999-00, 2000-01, 1998 -99 AND 2001-02. FURTHER, IN LINE 2 OF PARA 1 THE IMPUGNED ORDER, TH E CORRECT DATE OF ORDER SHOULD BE 8-12-2005 INSTEAD OF 8-8-1996. UNDISPUTEDLY THES E ARE TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKES. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE NO OBJECTION FOR TH E REQUISITE CORRECTIONS. THE PARTIES APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT SU FFER ON ACCOUNT OF MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THERE IS NO HEROISM IN P ERPETUATION OF THE MISTAKES WE RELY ON THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF HONDA SEIL POWER PRODUCTS LTD REPORTED IN 295 ITR 466 (SC). WE THEREFORE, RECTIFY THE ABOVE MISTAKES IN THE MA ORDER TO (I) READ AS A.Y. 1990-91 TO 1996-97, 1997-98, 1999-00, 2000-01, 1998-99 AND 2001-02 IN PLACE OF A .Y. 2004-05 AND (II) THE DATE OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE READ AS 8-1 2-2005 IN PLACE OF 8-8-1996. MA NO. 125/PN/2011 LOKNETE BALASAHEB SDESAI SSK LTD. A.Y. 1990-91 TO 1996-97, 1997-98, 1999-00, 2000-01, 1998-99 AND 2001-02 2 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLOWED IN THE ABOVE TERMS. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH JANUARY 2012 SD/- SD/- (IC SUDHIR) (D. KARUNAKARA R AO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R PUNE DATED THE 4 TH JANUARY 2012 ANKAM COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT(A)- II PUNE 4. CIT- III PUNE 5. D.R. ITAT PUNE BENCH BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T PUNE