P.A. YAKO, V. ITO WD 20(2)(1),

MA 866/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3627 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO. 866/MUM/2009 ARISING OUT OF ITA. NO. 4063 & 4064/MUM/2006 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-2001 AND 2003-2004 SHRI P.A. CHACKO MUTHALALY MUMBAI 400 056. PAN AABPM-8652-M VS. ITO, WARD, 20(2)(1) MUMBAI. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPLICANT : SHRI R.N. VASANI FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI AARSI PRASAD (DR) ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. 1. BY THIS APPLICATION, ASSESSEE SEEKS INDULGENCE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO RECTIFY CERTAIN MISTAKES CREPT IN THE C OMMON ORDER DATED 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2008 PASSED BY THE ITAT G BENCH, MUMBAI . THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT CERTAIN TYPOGRAPHI CAL ERRORS HAVE CREPT IN THE ORDER AND HENCE WE PROCEED TO RECTIFY THE ER RORS AS UNDER. 2. ABOVE THE CAUSE TITLE, INSTEAD OF MENTIONING AS SESSMENT YEARS 2000-2001 AND 2003-2004 IT WAS WRONGLY MENTIO NED AS 2000- 2001 AND 2001-2002. THE SAME SHALL BE READ AS ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-2001 AND 2003-2004. 3. SIMILARLY IN THE 5 TH LINE OF PARA 6 IT WAS WRONGLY MENTIONED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT HAS TO BE READ AS TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). THEREAFTER, THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED, WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF SECTION 80-0, AS UNDER : 2 HOWEVER, THIS FACT WAS NOT EXAMINED EARLIER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS IT WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE HIM. 4. HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT A CLAIM WAS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS DISCUSSED IN HIS ORDER DATED 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2005 AND REJECTED THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80-0. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE IS OMITTED FROM PARA 6 OF TH E IMPUGNED ORDER. HOWEVER, THIS FACT WAS NOT EXAMINED EARLIER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS IT WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE HIM. 5. MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS AC CORDINGLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) ( D MANMOHAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI : DATED: 19 TH APRIL, 2010 VBP/- COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 SHRI P.A. CHACKO MUTHALALY, B-702, PRIME AVENUE, S.V. ROAD, VILLE PARLE (WEST), MUMBAI 400 056. PAN AABPM-8652-M 2 ITO, 20 (2)-(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBA I 400 012. 3 CIT (A)-XX, MUMBAI. 4 CIT, CITY-XX, MUMBAI. 5 DR G BENCH 6. GUARD FILE /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI 3 SL. NO. PARTICULARS DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 16-04-2010 SR. P.S. 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE MEMBER 16-04-2010 SR. P.S. 3 DRAFT APPROVED AND SENT TO SECOND MEMBER V.P. 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER A.M. 5. DRAFT RECEIVED BY SR. P.S. SR. P.S. 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT SR. P.S. 7. SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR. P.S. 8. DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER