TATA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3), MUMBAI

MA 182/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6238 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V JENARDHANAN

Judgement Text

, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & S/SH. C . N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./M.A. NO. 182/MUM/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 139 8/MUM/2013) /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 TATA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. ELPHINSTONE BUILDING, 2 ND FLOOR, 10, VEER NARIMAN ROAD, MUMBAI-1 PAN : AAACT 4120 F VS. ASST. CIT-2(3), ROOM NO. 552, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI M. M. GOLVALA ASSESSEE BY: SHRI V. JENARDHANAN / DATE OF HEARING: 02.02.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02.02.2018 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) , / PER RAJENDRA, AM - VIDE ITS APPLICATION,DATED 03.04.2017,THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN APPARENT MISTAKES IN THE ORDER DTD. 26.08.2016 OF THE TRIBUN AL, THAT SAME WERE TO BE RECTIFIED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2)OF THE ACT,THAT ADDITIO NAL GROUNDS NO. 1, 4(A) AND 5 WERE TO RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE FAA, THAT IN THE ORDER THE TRIBU NAL HAD NOT MENTIONED THESE SPECIFIC GROUNDS, THAT FROM THE BODY OF THE ORDER IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE SE GROUNDS WERE NOT ADJUDICATED. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,THE AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE(AR) STATED THAT ABOVE REFERRED THREE GROUNDS WERE TO BE RESTORED TO THE F ILE OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY), THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD AGREED FOR SENDIN G THEM BACK.THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS.WE FIND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRESSED SOME GROUNDS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THAT IT WAS DECIDED TO RESTORE BACK SOME ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE FAA, THAT THERE IS AN INADVERTENT TYPOGRAPHICALLY E RROR IN THE FINAL ORDER. 4. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE FAA TO DECIDE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NOS.1, 4(A) AND 5.HE IS DIRECTED TO OFFER A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARI NG TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ABOVE REFERRED THREE GROUNDS. AS A RESULT, TH E MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02 ND FEBRUARY, 2018. 2 SD/- SD/- (C. N. PRASAD) (RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED : 02.02.2018 TATA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. 2 ROSHANI, SR. PS/JV,SR/PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.