, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI . . , . . , . . ! BEFORE R.S.SYAL, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION/ ' NO.501/MUM/2011 NO.501/MUM/2011 NO.501/MUM/2011 NO.501/MUM/2011 ARISING OUT OF ./ I.T.A. NO. 2977/MUM/2009 ( .' .' .' .' / / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR :1999-00) THE ASST COMMR OF INCOME TAX CIR 20(3), MUMBAI M/S TECHNOWELD 1-28 MITTAL ESTATE ANDHERI KURLA ROAD MAROL ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI 59 ( 01 / APPLICANT ) ' ' ' ' / VS. ( 2301 / RESPONDENT ) 0 4 ./ 5 ./ PAN.GIR NO. AAAFT 2273Q 01 6 / APPLICANT BY SH D S SUNDER SINGH 2301 7 6 / RESPONDENT BY : SH NARAYAN ATAL ' 7 84 / DATE OF HEARING 15 TH JUNE 2012 9:/ 7 84 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 4 TH JULY 2012 ; / O R D E R PER : , . . / VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY TH E REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/4/2011 OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHEREBY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 2997/MUM/2009 WAS DISPOSED OF ALONG WITH THE ASSESS EE'S APPEAL ITA (SS) A NO. 36/MUM/2009. 2 WE HEARD THE LD DR AS WELL AS THE NOT LD AR OF T HE ASSESSEE AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/3/2011. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LD DR THAT IN PARA IN 8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE REASON ING AND FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE WHEREAS I N THE CONCLUDING SENTENCE, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. THE LD DR TOOK US THROUGH M/S TECHNOWELD MA NO.501/MUM/2011 2 THE RELEVANT PART OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITT ED THAT THE CONCLUDING SENTENCE IS CONTRADICTORY TO THE REASONING AND FIND ING ON THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 3.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HA S MADE AN ATTEMPT TO ADVANCE THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS TRI BUNAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE RECALLED. 4 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND RELEV ANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IT IS A CASE OF APPARENT TYPOGRAPHICAL MI STAKE IN THE CONCLUDING SENTENCE OF THE LAST PARA OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE REASONI NG AND FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE REVENUE'S APPEAL IS IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE WH EREAS IN THE CONCLUDING SENTENCE IT IS INADVERTENTLY MENTIONED THAT THE APP EAL IN ITA NO. 2977/MUM/2009 IS DISMISSED. IT IS MANIFEST AND APPARENT THAT THE CO NCLUDING SENTENCE IS CONTRARY TO THE REASONING AND FINDING. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL, WHICH REQUIRES TO BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T. HENCE THE LAST PARA OF THE ORDER MAY BE READ AS UNDER: 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IN ITA (SS) A NO.36/MUM/20 09 AS WELL AS APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2977/MUM/2009 ARE ALLOWED. 5 IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF T HE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. < 8= 7 ' 8 > 7 8 ?@ ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH JULY 2012 . ; 7 :/ 4 A B '= 4/7/2012 : 7 C SD/ SD/ ( . . R S SYAL ) ( , VIJAY PAL RAO ) 4 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; B ' DATED 4/7/2012 RAJ* M/S TECHNOWELD MA NO.501/MUM/2011 3 BY ORDER COPY FORWARDED TO:69 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBA DRAFT DICTATED ON 28 TH JUNE 12 DICT PAD PLACED IN THE ORG. FILE SR PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR ON JULY 2012 SR PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACE BEFORE 2 ND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY 2 ND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR PS SR.PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10 DATE OF DESPATCH SR PS