IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No. 52/Srt/2022 in ITA No. 756/Ahd/2014) (Assessment Year: 2007-08) (Physical hearing) D.C.I.T., Circle 2(1)(1), Surat. Vs. Shri Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Kheni, 73, Sadhana Society, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. PAN No. AFZPK 3277 N Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.DR Assessee represented by Shri Ashwin K Parekh, CA Date of hearing 10/02/2022 Date of pronouncement 10/02/2023 Order under section 254(2) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This Miscellaneous Applications (MA) is filed by the revenue for seeking rectification/correction in order of this Tribunal dated 27/05/2022 passed in ITA No. 756/Ahd/2014 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08. 2. The learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submits that in para 19 of order dated 27/05/2022, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to correct the quantum of penalty as claimed by assessee that quantum of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) should have been of Rs. 3.46 crores instead of Rs. 5.20 crores. The ld. Sr. DR for revenue submits that the correct calculation after considering the amount of surcharge and education cess, MA No.52/SRT/2022 DCIT Vs Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Kheni 2 leviable penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded is Rs. 3,83,68,393/- and not Rs. 3,46,96,803/-. The ld. Sr. DR submits that last sentence of para 19 of order dated 27/05/2022 may suitably be rectified. 3. On the other hand, the learned Authorised representative (ld.AR) of the assessee after going through the working of tax calculation in the application under Section 254(2) of the Act, fairly agreed that figure of penalty after adding surcharge and education cess may be Rs. 3,83,68,393/-. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the order dated 27/05/2022. Considering the fact that the ld. AR of the assessee has fairly accepted that figure of penalty may be Rs. 3,83,68,393/-, therefore, we direct that last sentence of para 19 of our order dated 27/05/2022 be read as under: “However, we direct the Assessing Officer to correct the quantum of penalty by taking into account of surcharge and education cess on net tax liability.” With this observation, this Misc. application filed by the Revenue is allowed. 5. In the result, this Misc. application of the revenue is allowed. Order was announced on 10th February, 2023 at the time of hearing in physical court hearing. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 10/02/2023 MA No.52/SRT/2022 DCIT Vs Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Kheni 3 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By order / / TRUE COPY / / Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Surat