IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JM) & SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) M.A. NO. 291/MUM/2016 ARISING OUT OF R.A. NO. 2519/MUM/1992 IN I.T.A. NO.3990 /MUM/ 1988 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1984 - 85) INFO MEDIA PRESS LIMITED ( EARLIER KNOW AS TATA PRESS LTD) 414, VEER SAVARKAR MARG PRABHADEVI MUMBAI - 400 025. VS. CIT BOMBAY CITY - I MUMBAI. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AAACT0190R ASSESSEE BY SHRI NISHANT THAKKAR DEPARTMENT BY SHRI H.M. WANARE DATE OF HEARING 23 .9 . 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23. 9 . 201 6 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) : - THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE STATEMENT OF CASE REFERRED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO HONBL E HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 26 - 10 - 1993. 2. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE QUESTION THAT WAS REFERRED TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS RELATED TO THE GRANTING OF INTEREST U/S 214 OF THE ACT AFTER THE AMENDMENT MADE BY INSERTION OF SUB - SECTION (1A) IN SECTION 214. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS BROUGHT IN BY DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1984, BUT IT WAS INADVERTENTLY MENTIONED AS DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT 1987 IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD A.R TOOK US TO SEC. INFO MEDIA PRESS LTD. 2 214 OF THE ACT AND AMENDMENTS MADE THEREIN AND ACCORDINGLY PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE SAID MISTAKE MAY BE RECTIFIED. 3. WE HEARD LD D.R AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE AMENDMENT IN SEC. 214 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN BROUGHT BY DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT 1984 ONLY AND HENCE THE MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY THE WORDS DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987, WHERE EVER IT OCCURS SHALL BE REPLACED BY THE WORDS DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) AC T, 1984. 4. ACCORDINGLY PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE ORDER WOULD STAND MODIFIED AS UNDER: - 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE CONSIDER ONLY THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS REQUIRE TO BE REFERRED WHICH WOULD COVER ALL THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE QUESTIONS, NAMELY - 1. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE C.I.T UNDER SECTION 263? 2. WHETHER THE AMENDMENT MADE BY INSERTION OF SUB - SECTION (1A) IN SECTION 214 BY DIRECT TAX LAWS (A MENDMENT) ACT, 1984 PROVIDING FOR GRANT OF INTEREST IS CLARIFICATORY AND IN ANY EVENT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE? 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SOUGHT RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER BY SUBSTITUTING THE NEW NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORDER, I.E., T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE NAME OF TATA PRESS LIMITED, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN CHANGED INTO INFOMEDIA PRESS LIMITED. THE LD A.R FURNISHED COPIES OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION TO SHOW THE CHANGE OF NAME. WE NOTICE THAT THE NAME OF THE COMPA NY HAS BEEN CHANGED SEVERAL TIMES SUBSEQUENT TO PASSING OF THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL AND WE NOTICE THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN THE NAME, IN WHICH THE PETITION WAS FILED. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE MAY INFO MEDIA PRESS LTD. 3 NOT CONSTITUTE MI STAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WARRANTING RECTIFICATION OF ORDER. ACCORDINGLY WE REJECT THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23 .9 .2016 SD/ - SD/ - (MAHAVIR SINGH ) (B.R.BASKARAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 23 / 9 / 20 1 6 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWA RDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI