PALLONJI AND CO P.LTD, V. ADDL CIT RG 2(2),

MA 146/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3882 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR SONY
• Assessee Lawyers: RYAN SALDHANA

Judgement Text

, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -CBENCH MUMBAI , BEFORE S/SH.RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMIT SHUKLA,JUDICIAL MEMBER / MA NO.146/MUM/2015 (ARISING OUT OF / ITA NO.3184/MUM/2010, / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07) M/S. PALLONJI & CO. PVT. LTD. 46-A, TAJ PRINTING WORK CAWASJI PATEL STREET, FORT MUMBAI-400 001. PAN: AAACM 3525 B VS ADDL. CIT , RANGE-2(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MAHARSHI KARVE MARG MUMBAI-400 020. ( / APPLICANT) ( !' / RESPONDENT) /ASSESSEE BY :SHRI RYAN SALDHANA #$ / REVENUE BY :SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SONY / DATE OF HEARING : 08/01/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/01/2016 / ORDER ) #* PER RAJENDRA, AM - VIDE ITS APPLICATION DATED 30 TH JUNE, 2015 THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS STATED THAT TH ERE WAS A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 28/08/20 13,THAT WHILE DECIDING THE 2 ND GROUND OF APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL HAD MENTIONED THE CASE OF DAGA CAPITAL INVESTMENT LTD., THAT AT PARA 3.2 OF THE ORDER THE NAME OF THE CASE HAD TO BE GODREJ BOYCE, THAT TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR HAD TO BE RECTIFIED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) O F THE ACT. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE(AR) STATED THAT WORDS DAGA CAPITAL INVESTMENT LTD. HAD TO BE REPL ACED BY WORDS GODREJ & BOYCE (328 ITR 81). 3.WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FACTUALLY CORRE CT.THEREFORE,PARA 3.2 OF THE ORDER SHOULD BE READ AS UNDER : 3.2.BEFORE US,AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR) SUBMIT TED THAT AFTER THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE OBSERVAT IONS MADE BY THE FAA WERE TO BE IGNORED, THAT THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THAT RULE 8D WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR . DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE FAA. AS A RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH , 2016. 8 TH , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( / AMIT SHUKLA ) ( !'# / RAJENDRA ) $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER '%$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 08.01.2016 . . . JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / 2. RESPONDENT / MA/146/M/15-PALLONJI 2 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , . . , 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.