SHRI RAM NAGAR TRUST NO.1, MUMBAI V. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E)(1), MUMBAI

MA 379/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6094 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M C OMI NINGSHEN
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MUTSADDI
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Charitable institution; Capital receipt; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 139

Judgement Text

E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 379/MUM/2016 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 2150/MUM/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11) SHRI RAM NAGAR TRUST NO.1, 315 - G, NEW CHARNI ROAD, MUMBAI - 400004. / V. DDIT(EXEMP) - I(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, PAREL, MUMBAI - 400 012 ./ PAN : AAATR0427J ( / APPLICANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) APPLICANT BY : SHRI S.K. MUTSADDI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. M.C OMI NINGSHEN / DATE OF HEARING : 15 - 12 - 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03 - 01 - 2018 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING MA NO. 379/MUM/2016 ARISING OUT OF APPEAL BEARING ITA NO. 2150/MUM/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) , WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS IN THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.05.2016 PASSED BY I NCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL , E - BENCH MUMBAI , (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE TRIBUNAL ) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 IN ITA NO. 2150/MUM/2015 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS M.A U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT FOR THE RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORDS IN THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 31 - 05 - 2016 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL . THE ASSESSE E GRIEVANCE IS TWO - F OLD AS UNDER: - MA NO. 379/MUM/2016 ARISING OUT OF APPEAL NO. ITA NO. 2150/MUM/2015 2 A . THE ASSESSEE STATES THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS U/S. 11(2) ON THE ACT BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL , TO TH E TUNE OF RS. 1,89,10,525/ - BUT WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL VIDE ORDERS DATES 31.05.2016 , THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT GR ANTED CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION OF INCOME OR SETTING APART AS IS AVAILABLE TO THE TUNE OF 15% VIDE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1)(A ) OF THE 1961 ACT. THE LEARNED DR HAS FAIRLY STATED THAT THIS IS AN MA APPLICATION WHEREIN SCOPE IS VERY LIMITED TO THE CORRECTION OF MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORDS ONLY AND THE LEARNED DR FAIRLY STATED THAT THE MATTER MAY ACCORDINGLY BE DECIDED KEEPING IN VIEW LIMITED SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2). WE HAVE GONE THOUGH T H E ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2150/MUM/2015 DATED 31 - 05 - 2016, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD INCLUDING THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE PARTIES WE HAVE OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSESSEE - TRUST IS REGISTERED AS A CHARITABLE TRUST WITH DIT (E), MUMBAI U/S 12A OF THE ACT UNDER REGISTRATION NO. TR/327 AND WITH THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI VIDE REGISTRATION NO. E 3142 (BOM). THE ASSESSEE - TRUST CLAIMS TO BE ENGAGED IN CHA RITABLE ACTIVITIES IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION AND MEDICAL RELIEF. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE - TRUST VIDE RESOLUTION PASSED ON 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 HAD ACCUMULATED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,89,10,525/ - BEING THE EXCESS OF INCOME OVER THE EXPENDITURE FOR THE YE AR ENDING 31ST MARCH, 2010 TO BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR FUTURE PROJECT AND IN THE SAID RESOLUTION, IT WAS SHOWN THAT THE ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS IS SOUGHT TO BE MADE FOR FUTURE PROJECTS AND NO SPECIFIC AND CONCRETE PROJECTS ARE CONTEMPLATED FOR UTILIZATION OF THESE ACCUMULATED FUNDS. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE - TRUST IS THAT IT HAS EAR - MARKED AND ACCUMULATED FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SETTING UP HOSPITAL PROJECT COMPRISING OF HERBAL ENVIRONMENT AND IT WILL BE EQUIPPED WITH HOSPITAL , DIAGNOSTIC AND RESEARC H LABORATORIES, WELLNESS CENTRE, EDUCATIONAL TRAINING FACILITIES AS WELL AS CONVENTION CENTRE AT JOGESHWARI WHICH IS A MAJOR PROJECT COSTING AROUND 1466 CRORES ON A TEN ACRE OF PLOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE - TRUST FOR WHICH PROJECT REPORT IS SUBMITTED BY THE A SSESSEE - TRUST AND IS PLACED IN PAPER BOOK PAGE 76 - 102. THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT OF RS.1,89,10,525/ - HAS BEEN DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECT CLAUSE OF THE ASSESSEE - TRUST AND SETTING UP HOS PITALS , DISPENSARIES, HEALTH CENTRES , GIVING MEDICAL ASSISTANCE IS ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE - TRUST SPECIFIED IN THE TRUST DEED WHICH IS PLACED IN PAPER BOOK PAGE 106 - 114.IT IS ALSO MA NO. 379/MUM/2016 ARISING OUT OF APPEAL NO. ITA NO. 2150/MUM/2015 3 OBSERVED THAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , MUMBAI HAS UNDER TH E MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT,1966 HAS ACCORDED APPROVAL FOR EARMARKING THE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE - TRUST FOR HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 08 - 12 - 2008 BY DE - RESERVING THE SAID LAND FROM NO DEVELOP MENT ZONE. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION, (2003) 261 ITR 190(DEL. HC) THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE - TRUST WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE - TRUST IS ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT FOR FULFILLMENT OF OBJECTS AS SPECIFIED IN ITS TRUST DEED AND SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATION NEED NOT BE SPECIFIED. THE ASSESSEE - TRUST HAS ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS OTHER CASE LAWS WHICH ARE PLACED IN THE FORM OF CASE LAW PAPE R BOOK WHICH IS PLACED IN FILE TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTIONS THAT THE ACCUMULATION OF THE FUNDS U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE FOR ACHIEVING THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND EVEN THERE CAN BE PLURALITY OF OBJECTS TO BE ACHIEVED ARE ALSO ALLOWED AND THERE IS NO NEED TO MENTION SPECIFIC PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE - TRUST CONTENTION IS THAT THE FUTURE PROJECT REFERRED TO IN THE RESOLUTION IS FOR THE HOSPITAL PROJECT BEING SET - UP BY THE ASSESSEE - TRUST ON 10 ACRES OF PLOT AT JOGESHWARI FOR WHICH PROGRESS HAS BEEN ACHIEVE D BY THE ASSESSEE - TRUST. THE ASSESSEE TRUST RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTIONS: - 1. DECISION IN THE CASE OF DIT V. MITSUI & CO. ENVIRONMENTAL, (2008) 303 ITR 111(DEL. HC), 2. IN THE CASE OF BHARTIYA KALYAN PRATISTHAN V. DIT(E),( 2007) 299 ITR 406 (DEL. HC) 3. IN THE CASE OF M.P. GANDHI TRUST V. ADIT,(2006) 8 SOT 808 (MUM), 4. IN THE CASE OF SHREE SEETHARAMAN ANJANEYA VED KENDRA V. ADIT, (2002) 83 ITD 235 (COCHIN) THE ASSESSEE - TRUST HAS ALSO BELATEDLY FURNISHED THE FORM 10 BEYOND T HE TIME LIMIT STIPULATED UNDER RULE 17 OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WHICH WAS SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT , HOWEVER, BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, ALTHOU GH FORM NO 10 COULD NOT BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 139 (4A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME AS ALLOWED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT AS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 17 OF INCOME TAX RULES,1962. THE ASSESS EE TRUST HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL DECISIONS TO SUPPORT ITS PROPOSITION THAT FORM NO 10 CAN BE FILED AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT : - 1. CIT V. NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION, [2001] 247 I TR 201 (SC), MA NO. 379/MUM/2016 ARISING OUT OF APPEAL NO. ITA NO. 2150/MUM/2015 4 2. CIT V. MOTI RAM GOPI CHAND CHARITABLE TRUST, [2014] 360 ITR 598 (ALL.), 3. ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATION & APEX SOCIETIES OF HANDLOOMS V. ADIT, (2013) 30 TAXMANN. COM 22 (DELHI HIGH COURT) 4. ACIT V. STOCK EXCHANGE AHMEDABAD (2012) 25 TAXMANN. COM 469(GUJ.) 5. HARYANA LABOUR WELFARE BOARD V. CIT (P&H), (2013) 219 TAXMAN 158(P&H HC) 6. CIT V. MAYUR FOUNDATION, (2005) 274 ITR 562 (GUJ.) IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE CITED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS WHICH COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DR AND MORE SO IN THE DECISION OF THE DIT V. MITSUI & CO. ENVIRONMENTAL, (2008) 303 ITR 111(DELHI HC) WHEREBY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DULY CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT(E) V. TRUSTEES OF SING HANIA CHARITABLE TRUST(SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE, THE ASSESSEE - TRUST IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW IS ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS U/S.11(2) OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,89,10,525/ - BEING EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE TOWARDS TH E PROPOSES OF SETTING UP OF HOSPITAL PROJECT AT JOGESHWARI ALTHOUGH THE PURPOSES SPECIFIED IN THE RESOLUTION IS FOR FUTURE PROJECTS BUT THE SAME NEED TO BE READ IN THE CONJUNCTION WITH AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE HOSPITAL PROJECT WHICH WAS UNDERWAY AND WAS B EING SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE - TRUST ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES, THAT THE NON - SUBMISSION OF FORM 10 ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 17 OF INCOME TAX RULS,1962 IS DULY ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE - TRUST BY FILING THE FO RM NO 10 BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT AND MERELY BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION IS PASSED AFTER THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE - TRUST OF ITS CLAIM FOR ACCUMULATION OF FUND U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE - TRUST HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT IT WAS IN - FACT IN THE PROCESS OF SETTING UP HOSPITAL ON ITS 10 ACRE PLOT OF LAND AT JOGESHWARI FOR WHICH MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT HAS AL LOWED THE EARMARKING OF LAND FOR HOSPITAL PROJECT AS SET - OUT ABOVE FOR WHICH ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT WAS PROPOSED KEEPING IN VIEW PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES AND HUMAN CONDUCT AND ALSO IT IS WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT WHEN T ECHNICALITIES ARE PITTED AGAINST THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, THE COURSE WHICH ADVANCES SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS TO BE PREFERRED .WE ARE ALSO CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT EXEMPTION PROVISIONS ARE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED TO ESTABLISH THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE TAX - PAY ER FOR THE GRANT OF EXEMPTION BUT ONCE THE TAX - PAYER ESTABLISHES ITS ELIGIBILITY TO FALLS WITHIN THE EXEMPTION PROVISION THEN IT IS TO BE LIBERALLY MA NO. 379/MUM/2016 ARISING OUT OF APPEAL NO. ITA NO. 2150/MUM/2015 5 CONSTRUED TO GRANT FULL BENEFIT AS PROVIDED UNDER THE LAW. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE - TRUST HAS DU LY ESTABLISHED ITS CLAIM FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR GRANT OF THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT WHICH CANNOT DUE TO THE REASONS CITED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE - TRUST. IN OUR CONS IDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS ENTITLED FO R THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,89,10,525/ - AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE - TRUST AS PER OUR DETAILED REASONING AND DISCUSSIONS AS SET OUT ABOVE. SINCE, WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF THE CLAIM OF DE DUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE - TRUST OF BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE - TRUST IN THE INSTANT APPEAL AS SET OUT ABOVE, WE ARE REFRAINING FROM DECIDING THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE - TRUST THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.2 CRORES WAS RECEIVED IN LIEU OF FOREGOING RIGHT TO SUE AND IS CAPITAL RECEIPT NOT EXIGIBLE TO TAX AND THE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL / QUESTION IS KEPT OPEN. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND REASONING AS SET OUT ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 07 - 01 - 2015 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND CONSEQUENTIALLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 25 - 03 - 2013 PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE - TRUST AS INDICATED ABOVE BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS ENTITLED FOR BENEFIT U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT OF THE ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,89,10,525/ - AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE - TRUST IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITH REVENUE AND ALSO INFORM NO 10 FILED BEFORE THE AO. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 11.IN THE RE SULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST IN ITA N0. 2150/MUM/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 IS ALLOWED. THUS, VIDE AFORESAID ORDERS DATED 31 - 05 - 2016 THE TRIBUNAL HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY ALLOWING BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION U/S 11(2) AND ONCE PROPOSITION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION OF INCOME U/S 11(2) AND BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION OF INCOME IS AVAILABLE, THEN CONSEQUENTIALLY BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION OF ACCUMULATION OR SET APART TO THE TUNE OF NOT EXCEEDING 15% OF SUCH INCOME AS IS AVAILABLE U/S. 11(1)(A) IS TO BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND THIS IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS WHI CH IS RECTIFI ED NOW BY US VIDE THIS MA ORDER . THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SPECIFICALLY RAISED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IN MEMO OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS APPEAL, AS UNDER : - MA NO. 379/MUM/2016 ARISING OUT OF APPEAL NO. ITA NO. 2150/MUM/2015 6 3. ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) {CIT(A)} AND ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPELLANT'S PLEA FOR GRANTING DEDUCTION OF 15% OF THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME U/S 11(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT . THUS, WE DIRECT THE AO TO GRANT RELIEF U/S 11(1)(A) AND WE ALLOW THE GROUND NO. 3 AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS THE ERROR CREPT IN THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BY NOT ADJUDICATING GROUND NO. 3 WHICH WAS SPECIFICALLY RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BEING CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE TO GRANT OF BENEFIT OF AC CUMULATION OF INCOME U/S 11(2) OUGHT TO HAD BEEN ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THIS GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED AND IS RECTIFIED VIDE THIS MA ORDER. B) THE SECOND GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO NON ADJUDICATION OF G ROUND NO. 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS HERE UNDER: - 4. ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) {CIT(A)} ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2 CRORES RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM OM VISHAL NAGAR CO - OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. IS NOT A CAPITAL RECEIPT, AND THEREFORE, IS A PART OF INCOME OF THE APPELLANT TRUST. IN DOING SO, THE CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.2 CRORES IS LIABLE TO BE TAXABLE AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT TRUST ON THE GROUNDS OF COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES AND NOT EXEMPT FROM THE CHARGE OF INCOME TAX AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT, SINCE IT BEING IN THE NATURE OF A CAPITAL RECEIPT.' THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND WAS DULY ARGUED AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND THE SAME MAY BE ADJUDICATED BY TRIBUNAL ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WHILE LEARNED DR ONCE AGAIN REMINDED US OF LIMITED SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2). WE H AVE OBSERVED THAT TRIBUNAL HAD ALREADY GRANTED RELIEF OF ACCUMULATION U/S. 11(2) AND SINCE RELIEF WAS ALREADY GRANTED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE ASSESSEE OF ACCUMULATION OF INCOME U/S 11(2), THE TRIBUNAL REFRAINED FROM ADJUDICATING THIS GROUND NO. 4 CONSCIOUSLY AS THE SAID ISSUE BECAME INFRUCTUOUS /ACADEMIC AND THE ISSUE WAS CONSCIOUSLY KEPT OPEN. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW FILED THIS M.A SEEKING ADJUDICATION OF THIS GROUND NO.4 , WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW IS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF THIS M.A APPLICATION AS SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION MA NO. 379/MUM/2016 ARISING OUT OF APPEAL NO. ITA NO. 2150/MUM/2015 7 OF THE ORDE RS U/S 254(2) IS ONLY TO CORRECT MISTAKES WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND NOT TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE WHICH REQUIRED LONG DRAWN REASONING AND APPLICATION OF MIND . THE ISSUE WAS CONSCIOUSLY KEPT OPEN BY THE TRIBUNAL AS IT WAS MERELY ACADEMIC IN NATURE AN D THE ASSESSEE IN ANY CASE GOT THE RELIEF BY THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION U/S 11(2) WAS ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL . T HUS THIS G RIEVANCE AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MA APPLICATION STOOD DISMISSED AS THE SAME IS BEYOND THE VERY LIMITED PURVIEW OF SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) . IN THE RESULT THIS M.A OF THE A SSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03 .01.2018 03 .01.2018 SD/ - SD/ - ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 03 .01.2018 NISHANT VERMA SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY COPY TO 1 . THE APPELLANT 2 . THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4 . THE CIT - CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5 . THE DR BENCH, E 6 . MASTER FILE // TUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI