IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 26/PN/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.1003 TO 1009/PN/2012) (ASST.YEARS: 2001-02 TO 2007-08) M.N.NAVALE (BIGGER HUF), SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY CAMPUS, VADGAON BK, PUNE .. APPLICANT PAN NO.AAEHN1259C VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE .. RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI S.N. DOSHI REVENUE BY : SHRI S.P. WALIMBE DATE OF HEARING : 14-03-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14-03-2014 ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, AM : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN PREFERRED B Y THE ASSESSEE REQUESTING THE TRIBUNAL TO RECTIFY THE TYPOGRAPHICA L MISTAKE THAT HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL U/S.254(2) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.YRS . 2001-02 TO 2008-09 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, INADVERTENTLY, IN IST SENTENCE OF PARA 5 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED DID NOT EXIST AS AGAINST DID EXIST . THIS BEING A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AND MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECOR D, THE SAME SHOULD BE RECTIFIED U/S.254(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY CONCEDED THE ABOVE. 3. IN VIEW OF THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WE HEREBY DIRECT THAT IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF PARA 5, INSTEAD OF THE WORDS 2 DID NOT EXIST, IT SHOULD BE READ AS DID EXIST. ACCORDINGLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF, I.E. ON 14-03-2014. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (G.S.PANN U) JUDICIAL MEMBER AC COUNTANT MEMBER SATISH PUNE DATED : 14 TH MARCH, 2014. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT(A) CENTRAL, PUNE 4. CIT CENTRAL, PUNE 5. THE D.R, B PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE