IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARM A, A.M. M.A.NO.36/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NO. 34/IND/2010 A.Y. : 200 7 - 08 M/S. ANANT STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED, ACIT, 5(1), INDO RE. VS INDORE. APP LICANT RESPONDENT M.A.NO.37/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NO. 35/IND/2010 A.Y. : 2007 - 08 M/S. SHIVANGI ESTATES LIMITED, ACIT, 5(1), INDORE. VS INDORE. APP LICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANTS BY : SHRI S.N.AGARWAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI KESHAVE SAXENA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 2 7 .04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 . 0 5 .201 2 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M. THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30 TH DECEMBER, 2011. -: 2: - 2 2. CERTAIN APPARENT TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKES HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE I N THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.12.2011. 3. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ON PAGE 9 OF THE ORDER TO A RRIVE AT THE FIGURE OF UNRECORDED SALES OF RS. 42,62,88,0 00/-, THE AVERAGE QUANTITY OF BILLS TAKEN AT 16 M. TONS AND M ULTIPLIED 220 DAYS IN PLACE OF 1284 NOS. OF INVOICES ISSUED. AS IT IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE, WE RECTIFY THE SAME AND DIRECT TH AT FIGURE OF 220 DAYS IS TO BE SUBSTITUTED BY THE WORD 1284 NO.O F BILLS. 4. IN THE M. A., IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ON PAGE NO.16 OF THE ORDER WHILE REPRODUCING THE VERSION OF THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) IN THE TABLE THE AVERAGE RATE AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF M/S. ANANT STEEL P VT.LTD. OF RS. 20,750/- WAS INADVERTENTLY REMAINS TO BE MENTIO NED AND THE SAID COLUMN OF THE TABLE LEFT BLANK. SIMILARLY, THE ACTUAL QUANTITY WAS INADVERTENTLY CONSIDERED AT 123.768 M. TONS IN PLACE OF 12.768 M. TONS. 5. AS THIS IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE, WE RECTIFY THE SAME AND FIGURE OF 1223.768 M. TON IS REPLACED BY 12.768 M. TONS. -: 3: - 3 6. ON PAGE 20 OF THE ORDER IN PARA 13, THE AMOUNT OF INCOME SURRENDERED TYPED AS 89,69,911/- IN PLACE OF 89,61,911/-. AS THIS IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE, WE RECTIFY THE SAME. 7. ON PAGE 35 IN THE FIFTH LINE FROM BELOW, THE WORD CONTRADICTORY IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBSTITUTED BY TH E WORD FACTORY. AS THIS IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE. WE R ECTIFY THE SAME. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 8. THE ANOTHER MISTAKE POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT AN APPARENT MISTAKE BUT AMOUNTS TO REVIEW OF ORDER. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE SAME. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE ALLOWED I N PART. 10. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD MAY, 2012. (JOGINDER SINGH) ( R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL M EMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED :23 RD _MAY, 2012. CPU* 301.5 -: 4: - 4