M.A. No.67/RJT/2019 (In ITA No.597/RJT/2012) A.Y. 2009-10 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad) BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.67/RJT/2019 (In ITA No.597/RJT/2012) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Vs. M/s. Jaisu Dredging & Shipping Limited, Room No.1 & 2, Kewal Ramani House, Dinshaw Building Road, Near Custom House, Kandla Port, Gujarat. [PAN – AAACJ 9589 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey , Sr. DR Da te o f He a r in g 18.08.2023 Da te o f P ro n o u n ce m e n t 23.08.2023 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the Revenue in respect of order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the Tribunal. 2. At the time of hearing, despite giving notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. In fact, the Department has also affixed notice at the premises of the assessee but no response is received from the assessee. Hence, we are proceeding with the contents of the Revenue’s Miscellaneous Application before us. M.A. No.67/RJT/2019 (In ITA No.597/RJT/2012) A.Y. 2009-10 2 3. The Ld. DR submitted that in paragraph no. 2 of the order dated 12.07.2019, instead of mentioning that Third Member Bench has answered in favour of the “Revenue”, the Tribunal has inadvertently mentioned the word “assessee”. Therefore, the same may be rectified. 4. We have heard the Ld. DR. and perused all the relevant material available on record. The contention of the Ld. DR that the word “assessee” should be replaced with the word “Revenue” appears to be correct in respect of the order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the Tribunal. Hence, paragraph no.2 of the order dated 12.07.2019 is rectified as follows :- “2. The matter was eventually referred to Third Member Bench, for resolving this point of difference, as a Third Member bench vide order dated 17.06.2019. This Third Member Bench has answered in favour of the Revenue and confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that the same was fair and reasonable against the order. In accordance with the majority view, therefore, having regard to the provisions of section 255(4), the ld. CIT(A) was indeed in error in entertaining the appeal of the assessee. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.” 5. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 23 rd August, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Accountant Member Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 23 rd day of August, 2023 PBN/* M.A. No.67/RJT/2019 (In ITA No.597/RJT/2012) A.Y. 2009-10 3 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad