The ITO, Ward-1(1), Surat V. M/s. Balaji Processors Pvt.Ltd., Surat

MA 5/SRT/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2012 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2022
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANUPAMA SINGLA
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM Miscellaneous Application (M.A)No.05/SRT/2022 (Arising out of M.A No.34/SRT/2018 in MA No.130/AHD/2017 in connection with. ITA No.2261/AHD/2011) (िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year: (2003-04) (Virtual Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(1), Room No. 111, 1 st Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat Vs. Balaji Processors Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.35-36, Barmoli Road, GIDC Pandesara, Surat-394 221 ̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCB 2094 F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by :None Respondent by :Ms. Anupama Singla – Sr.D.R सुनवाईकᳱतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 11/03/2022 घोषणाकᳱतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 02/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the Revenue has pointed out that there is a typographical mistake in quoting “assessment year” on the cause title of M.A No.34/SRT/2018/M.A No.130/AHD/2017, vide order dated 28.05.2021; which needs correction/rectification. 2. None appeared on behalf of assessee, despite of issuance of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this Miscellaneous Application with the able assistance of the Learned Senior Departmental Representative. The Ld. DR pointed out in MA No.34/SRT/2018/ MA Page | 2 MA No.05/SRT/2022 (a/o MA No.34/SRT/2018) Balaji Processors Pvt. Ltd. No.130/AHD/2017, vide order dated 28.05.2021, the Tribunal has committed typographical mistake in quoting “Assessment Year”. The Tribunal has mentioned assessment year 2013-14, by mistake, instead of assessment year 2003-04, which needs rectification. 3. We have heard learned DR for the Revenue and perused the materials available on record. We note that case before us is to rectify the Miscellaneous application, that is, it is MA on MA. Thus, a miscellaneous application can not be recalled as per the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. However, we note that it is only a typographical mistake in quoting the assessment year in the cause title of the miscellaneous application, which could be corrected by issuing corrigendum by the Tribunal. That is, the Tribunal could correct this typographical error by issuing corrigendum suo-moto. However, since, the Revenue has filed miscellaneous application on miscellaneous application ( MA on MA), therefore, we do not have any option but to dispose of this miscellaneous application. 4. Therefore, we make it clear here that our intention is not to recall the miscellaneous application and to adjudicate the said miscellaneous application again on merit, hence we are not violating the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. Our main purpose is to rectify the typographical mistake which could be rectified by us suo-motu by issuing corrigendum. If we do not rectify this typographical error then it would be a perpetuate error. To err is human but there cannot be any justification for perpetuating an error. Lord, Justice, P.N. Bhagwati, in the case of Distributors (baroda) P. Ltd. vs. Union of India & ors. (1985) 155 ITR 0120 (SC) said: Page | 3 MA No.05/SRT/2022 (a/o MA No.34/SRT/2018) Balaji Processors Pvt. Ltd. “To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of the judicial conscience. In this, we derive comfort and strength from the wise and inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce vs. Delameter (A.M.Y. at page 18): "a judge ought to be wise enough to know that he is fallible and, therefore, ever ready to learn ; great and honest enough to discard all mere pride of opinion and follow truth wherever it may lead : and courageous enough to acknowledge his errors". 5. Therefore, by following the dictum laid down by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd (Supra), we rectify the typographical mistake as follows: “In the cause title of MA No.34/SRT/2018/ M.A No.130/AHD/2017, dated 28.05.2021, the “Assessment Year 2003-04” should be read instead of ‘Assessment Year 2013- 14’.” 6. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue, (M.ANo.05/SRT/2022) is allowed, to the extent indicated above, only to rectify the typographical error. Order pronounced on 02/06/2022 by placing the result on the Notice Board as per Rule 34(5) of the income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rule 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat/ᳰदनांक/ Date: 02/06/2022 / Dkp outsourcing Sr.P.S Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr.CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // True Copy // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat