INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 2 ( 2) (1 ), MUMBAI V. BAGWATISWAR KRISHNA IYER, MUMBAI

MA 50/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5728 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.50/M/2020 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2276/M/2018) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 2(2)(1), 17 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.1725, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400021 VS. M/S. BAGWATISWAR KRISHNA IYER, C-103, SUNDAY VILLE, S.V. ROAD, SANTACRUZ (WEST), MUMBAI-400 054 PAN: AAAPI2344D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BHUPENDRA SHAH, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR MISHRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 29.01.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.02.2021 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BY VIRTUE OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE REVENUE SEEKS THE RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO.2276/M/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 DATED 08.07.2019. 2. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE ORDER IT HAS BEEN WRONGLY BEEN MENTIONED AS ASSESSEES APPEAL AND FINALLY DISPOSED OF AS ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE LD. D.R. DREW OUR ATTENTION TO VERY FIRST PAGE OF THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2019 WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT MA NO.50/M/2020 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2276/M/2018) M/S. BAGWATISWAR KRISHNA IYER 2 THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO ON THE LAST PAGE IN PARA 6 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COST. THE LD. A.R. AGREED TO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. QUA THESE APPARENT MISTAKES IN THE ORDER. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE OBSERVE THAT ON THE VERY FIRST PAGE IT HAS WRONGLY BEEN MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-56, MUMBAI, DATED 31.01.18 FOR AY 2014- 15 SIMILARLY, IN PARA NO.6 IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED WHICH IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COST. 4. WE OBSERVE THAT THESE ARE THE PRIMA-FACIE MISTAKES IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AND REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE FOLLOWING PARAS ARE BEING SUBSTITUTED IN PLACE OF PARAS NO.1 & 6 RESPECTIVELY: 1. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-56, MUMBAI, DATED 31.01.18 FOR AY 2014- 15 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COST. 5. THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2019 STANDS MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT AS STATED HEREINABOVE. MA NO.50/M/2020 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2276/M/2018) M/S. BAGWATISWAR KRISHNA IYER 3 6. CONSEQUENTLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02.02.2021. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 02.02.2021. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.