P A G E | 1 MA. NO. 627/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2013 - 14 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 377/MUM/2017 SHRI PARIKSHIT MANDIR SIAL VS. ITO(IT) - 4(2)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, M UMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM M.A. NO.627 /MUM/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 377/MUM/2017 ) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013 - 14 ) SHRI PARIKSHIT MANDIR SIAL 501, SEA GODDESS GREEN FIELD ESTATE, A.B. NAIR ROAD, OPP. JUHU POST OFFICE JUHU, MUMBAI - 400 057 / VS. ITO (IT) - 4(2)(2) MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN NO. AVJPS5311E ( / APPLICANT) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPLICANT BY : SHRI ANIL MEHTA , A.R / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SATISH CHANDRA RAJORE , D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 08.02 .2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 3 .02 .2019 / O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 10.10.2018 ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI PARIKSHIT M. SIAL VS. ITO (IT) - 4(2)(2), MUMBAI IN ITA NO. 377/MUM/2017, DATED 11.07.2018. 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPLICATION IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE P A G E | 2 MA. NO. 627/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2013 - 14 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 377/MUM/2017 SHRI PARIKSHIT MANDIR SIAL VS. ITO(IT) - 4(2)(2) APPLICANT THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER HAD AT THREE PLACES INADVERTENTLY ERRED IN MAKING A REFERENCE OF FLAT NO. 201, SEA GODDESS, JUHU , MUMBAI AS AGAINST THE NEW PROPERTY THAT WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE BY RAISING A BANK LOAN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E MANDAR BUNGLOW, JUHU, MUMBAI, AS UNDER PAGE 2 PARA 3 : (13 TH LINE OF THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2018) PAGE 6 PARA 4 : (4 TH LINE OF THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2018) PAGE 7 PARA 9 : (5 TH LINE OF THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2018 ) IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE AFORESAID MISTAKE THAT HAD CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECTIFIED. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) DID NOT OBJECT TO THE SAID CONTENTION OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL AND A RE PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE AFORESAID CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. A.R BEFORE US . WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE PASSING ITS AFORESAID ORDER HAD INADVERTENTLY MADE A REFERENCE OF FLAT NO. 201 SEA GODDESS, JUHU, MUMBAI INSTEAD OF THE NEW PROPERTY T HAT WAS PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR I.E. MANDAR BUNGLOW, JUHU, MUMBAI. THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISCERNIBLE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE LETTER DATED 17.02.2016 (FILED ON 18.02.2016) WITH THE A.O IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ( PAGE 35 - 36 ) OF THE A SSESSES PAPER BOOK (FOR SHORT APB). WE THUS RECTIF Y THE AFOREMENTIONED MISTAKE AND MODIF Y THE ORDER PASSED BY THE T RIBUNAL UNDER SEC.254(1), DATED 11.07.2018, AND HEREINAFTER THE REFERENCE OF THE NEW PROPERTY SHALL BE READ AS MANDAR BUNGLOW, JUHU, MUMBAI AS AGAINST FLAT NO. 201, SEA GODDESS , JUHU, MUMBAI AS WAS P A G E | 3 MA. NO. 627/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2013 - 14 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 377/MUM/2017 SHRI PARIKSHIT MANDIR SIAL VS. ITO(IT) - 4(2)(2) INADVERTENTLY REFERRED TO BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FOLLOWING PARTS OF ITS ORDER: PAGE 2 PARA 3 : (13 TH LINE OF THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2018) PAGE 6 PARA 4 : (4 TH LINE OF THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2018) PAGE 7 PARA 9 : (5 TH LINE OF THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2018) 4. THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC. 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 3 . 02.2019 S D / - S D / - ( G. MANJUNATHA ) ( RAVISH SOOD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 1 3 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 9 PS. ROHIT / 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 . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI P A G E | 4 MA. NO. 627/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2013 - 14 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 377/MUM/2017 SHRI PARIKSHIT MANDIR SIAL VS. ITO(IT) - 4(2)(2)