ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI V. M/S. WORLEY INDIA PVT. LTD. ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS JACOBS ENGINEERING INDIA P.LTD), MUMBAI

MA 398/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0956 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKSH D CHOUGHULE
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFOR SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMNER MA No. 398/M/2023 Arising Out of ITA No.3700/M/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 2(2)(1), Room No.545, 5 th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. M/s. Worley India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Jacobs Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.), Jacobs House, Ramkrishna Mandir Road, Kondivita, Andheri(East), Mumbai-400 059 PAN: AAACH0456J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Niraj Sheth, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Praksh D Choughule- Sr.AR Date of Hearing : 06 . 10 . 2023 Date of Pronouncement : 06 . 10 . 2023 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: Heard : Applicant M/s. Worley India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Jacobs Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) by filing a miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) sought to rectify the mistake apparent on record pointed out as under : “ii. The following grounds raised by the appellant in this appeal:- MA No. 398/M/2023 Arising Out of ITA No.3700/M/2016 M/s. Worley India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Jacobs Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.) 2 (a) On page No. 2 para 3, the Hon'ble ITAT had stated that present appeal had been filed against DRP order, but as per records available, the appeal in ITAT had been filed against CIT appeal Order. (b) While commenting on the comparables M/s. Accuspeed Engineering Design Services Limited, M/s. Cades Digitech Private Limited, M/s. M. N. Dastur & Company (P) Limited, the Hon'ble ITAT had stated in Para 17, Para20 and Para 23 that the Hon'ble High Court upheld the inclusion of these comparables in assessee's own case for AY 2010- 11, but as per records available, the Hon'ble High Court had not decided the assessee case on merit but it had set aside the ITAT Order dated 10.01.2018 to ITAT to hear the parties and pass the order on merit.” 2. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee on the other hand opposed the application on the ground that so far as first mistake is concerned, admittedly in place of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) “order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)” is to be mentioned in para 3 of the order (supra). However, so far as the second mistake sought to be rectified by the applicant is concerned the findings have been returned by the Tribunal on merits. 3. Perusal of para 3 of the order dated 31.10.2022 in ITA No.3700/M/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 passed by the Tribunal goes to show that due to clerical error it is recorded that “the impugned order dated 16.04.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) inconsonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)......” words “the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)” is to be mentioned. So para 3 of the order (supra) is ordered to be rectified by replacing Ld. CIT(A) instead of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 4. So far as second mistake pointed out by the applicant by filing the present application in para 17, 20 & 23 of the order (supra) is concerned the Tribunal has given findings on merits MA No. 398/M/2023 Arising Out of ITA No.3700/M/2016 M/s. Worley India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Jacobs Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.) 3 which have not been disputed by the applicant, however due to inadvertence in the last 2 to 3 lines of para 17, 20 & 23 it is recorded that “Further, we find that Hon'ble Bombay High Court upheld the inclusion of Accuspeed as valid comparable in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2010-11.” 5. However, these findings are factually incorrect, hence mistake apparent on record. So these are ordered to be rectified/excluded from para 17, 20 & 23 of the order (supra). 6. In view of what has been discussed above, miscellaneous application filed by the applicant is hereby allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.10.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 06.10.2023. * Kishore, Sr.PS Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.