IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MA NO. 36/MUM/2020 (ITA NOS. 1623/MUM/2017) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S VENUS INTERNATIONAL, 26/28, MOHAN NIWAS, OLD HANUMAN LANE, MUMBAI-400 002 VS. DCIT-14(2), MUMBAI. PAN NO. AAAFV5850B APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. NARESH JAIN, AR REVENUE BY : MR. SUNIL DESHPANDE, DR DATE OF HEARING : 04/12/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/12/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. BY MEANS OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA), TH E APPLICANT SEEKS RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER DATED 23.05.2019 PASSED BY THE ITAT F BENCH, MUMBAI. 2. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING ON 08.04.2019 HE HAD RELIED HEAVI LY ON THE DECISION IN LOTUS INVESTMENTS LTD. V. ACIT [MUM-TRIB.-(2019) 55 CCH 0184] AND ELDE ELECTRICALS AGENCIES PVT. LTD. V. CIT [BOM HC-2015(7) TMI 16] AND IT IS STATED BY HIM THAT WHILE DISPOSING THE APPEAL, THE ABOVE DECISIONS WERE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE, RECTIFICATI ON BE MADE U/S 254(2) OF MA NO. 36/MUM/2020 M/S VENUS INTERNATIONAL. 2 THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. COUNSEL RELIES ON THE DECISION IN HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. V. CIT (2007) 165 TAXMAN 307 (SC) STATING THAT ADJUDICATION OF GROUNDS WITHO UT CONSIDERING THE DECISION CITED BY THE APPELLANT WOULD ALLOW RECTIFI CATION U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE (DR) SUBMITS THAT AS THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISPOSED OFF ON MERIT BY A SPEAKING ORDER, THERE BEING NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, THE PRESENT MA BE DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING ON 08.04.2019, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF LOTUS INVESTMENTS LTD. (SUPRA) AND CIT V. BHOGILAL RAMJI BHAI ATARA (2014) 222 TAXMAN 0313 (GUJ). REFERENCE WAS MADE BY HIM TO THE DECISION IN ELDE ELECTRICALS AGENCIES PVT. LTD . (SUPRA). THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING FILED A COPY OF THE DECISION IN ACIT V. DATTATRAY POULTRY BREEDING FARM (P.) LTD. (2018) 95 TAXMANN.COM 130 (AHD-TRIB.). AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE LD. COUNSEL FILED BEFORE T HE BENCH DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE DECISION IN LOTUS INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA) AND REFERRED TO THE DECISION IN ELDE ELECTRICALS AGENCIES PVT. LTD . (SUPRA). INADVERTENTLY, WHILE PASSING THE ORDER DATED 23.05. 2019, THE TRIBUNAL MISSED THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WHILE FRAMING THE ORDER . NOT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THOUGH IT WAS CITED BEFORE IT, IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA). MA NO. 36/MUM/2020 M/S VENUS INTERNATIONAL. 3 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND POSITION OF LAW, W E RECALL THE ORDER DATED 23.05.2019 TO THE LIMITED EXTENT OF EXAMINING THE APPLICATION OF THE DECISION IN ELDE ELECTRICALS AGENCIES PVT. LTD . (SUPRA) AND LOTUS INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) TO THE PRESENT CASE AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE CASE FOR HEARING BEFORE A REGULAR BENCH. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE M.A. IS ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/12/2020. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED: 04/12/2020. RAHUL SHARMA, SR. P.S. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED 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) ITAT, MUMBAI