JP MORGAN FUNDS , Mumbai V. DCIT (IT) 3(1)(1), Mumbai

MA 307/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4953 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

MA No 307/Mum/2021 In ITA No.2430/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2015-16 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI 'I' BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member)] MA No 307/Mum/2021 In ITA No.2430/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2015-16 JP Morgan Funds ...................... Appellant C/o SRBC & Associates LLP, 14 th Floor, The Ruby, 29-Senapathi Bapat Marg, Dadar (W)Mumbai 400028 [PAN: AABCJ4972E] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (IT) 3(1)(1) Mumbai ........................ Respondent Appearances by Rajan Vora along with Heman Chandaria for the applicant Milind Chavan for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : February 11, 2022 Date of pronouncement the order : March 21, 2022 ORDER Per Pramod Kumar, VP: 1. By way of this rectification petition, the assessee applicant points out a mistake, apparent on record, in our order dated 12 th August 2021. The mistake, as pointed out in the said order, is that while we have dismissed the appeal as infructuous on the ground that sale of shares did not take place in the relevant previous year, the correct factual position is that the sale of shares did take place in the relevant previous year. We are thus urged to recall our order dated 12 th August 2021, and decide the appeal on merits. 2. Heard the parties and perused the records. 3. We find that the appeal was dismissed as infructuous on the basis of cretin observations of the learned CIT(A) indicating that the sale of shares did not take place in the relevant previous MA No 307/Mum/2021 In ITA No.2430/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2015-16 Page 2 of 2 year, the correct factual position is that the sale of shares did take place in the relevant previous year. The matter was thus required to be decided on merits. On being pointed out the related facts, learned Departmental Representative also accepts this factual position. Clearly, thus, the impugned order does suffer from a mistake apparent on record, and it can be rectified under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The plea of the applicant is indeed correct. 4. In view of the above discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we deem it fit and proper to recall the order dated 12 th August 2021, and direct the Registry to post the matter for hearing on merits on 29 th March 2022. Ordered, accordingly. 5. In the result, miscellaneous application is allowed. Pronouncement in the open court today on the 21 st March, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- Rahul Chaudhary Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Vice President) Mumbai, dated the 21 st March, 2022 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) Guard File By order True Copy Assistant Registrar/ Sr. PS Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai benches, Mumbai