ITO., WARD-7(1)(3), MUMBAI V. OWENS CORNING (INDIA)LTD., MUMBAI

MA 582/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9212 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RUSHI KAPADIA; MEGHA SHAH ARS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) M.A. NO. 582/MUM/2019 ( ITA NO. 4988/MUM/2011 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER - 7 (1)(3) MUMBAI, AAYAKARBHAVAN, M.K. ROAD , MUMBAI - 400020 VS. OWENS - CORNING (INDIA) PVT. L TD., ALPHA BUILDING, 7 TH FLOOR, HIRANANDANI GARDENS POWAI, MUMBAI - 400076. PAN NO. AAACD1739M APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : MR. UODAL RAJ SINGH , SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : MR. RUSHI KAPADIA & MS. MEGHA SHAH, ARS DATE OF HEARING : 03/01/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/01/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM BY MEANS OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA), THE APPLICANT SEEKS RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER DATED 08.05.2019 PASSED BY THE ITAT C BENCH MUMBAI (ITA NO. 4988/MUM/2011) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006 - 07. 2. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITS THAT IN PARA 4.3 (PAGE 6) OF THE IMP UGNED ORDER , A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE HAS OCCURRED IN THE SENSE THAT INSTEAD OF IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2006 - 07, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE CASE OF ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD. (SUPRA). THE LD. COUNSELS FOR THE ASSESSEE AGREE WITH THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. DR. OWENS - CORNING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. MA NO. 582/MUM/2019 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT A MISTAKE HAS CREPT IN PARA 4.3 (PAGE 6) OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. INSTEAD OF IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2006 - 07, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE CASE OF ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD . (SUPRA) FOR THE AY 2006 - 07. WE RECTIFY THE MISTAKE AND THE SUBSTITUTED PARAGRAPH NOW READS AS UNDER : IN THE CASE OF ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD . (SUPRA) FOR THE AY 2006 - 07, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HE LD THAT IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PROVISIONS BUT HAD NOT RECEIVED THE BILLS, THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR THE PROVISIONS MADE BY IT WERE OFFERED FOR TAXATION. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS AND FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MAHINDRA & MAHI NDRA LTD & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANKING COMPANY (SUPRA), WE DECIDE GROUND NO 2 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MA IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/01/2020. SD/ - SD/ - ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 03/01/2020 RAHUL SHARMA, SR. P.S. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE . BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY) ITAT, MUMBAI