TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come. The ld. AO added the same in the assessment u/s 115JB of the Act. Then, this matter had travelled before this Tribunal, wherein the ld. AR of the assessee had conceded this issue to be decided against the assessee in view of retrospective amendment brought in the section - When the ld. AR admits at the time of hearing that the said ground was not pressed by him in view of the retrospective amendment in the statute and especially the fact of admission by the ld. AR is not in dispute before us, in our considered opinion, the same would only constitute mistake committed by the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee. Hence, it would not fall under the ambit of mistake apparent on record committed by the Tribunal in the order warranting rectific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ara 3 of its miscellaneous application had pointed out as under:- 3. Under the details of Return of Income for AY 2002-03 on page 1, returned income has been inadvertently stated as ₹ 156,34,64,632/- instead of returned loss of ₹ 156,34,64,632/-. 2.1. We find that claim of assessee to be correct and accordingly, we modify the order of this Tribunal in page 1 thereon, that returned loss should be ₹ 156,34,64,632/- as against returned income wrongly mentioned in the tabulation in the said order. 3. We find that the assessee has mentioned in para 4 of its miscellaneous application as under:- 4. In para 2 on page 1, it is stated that: exce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1999-00 ITA/3070/Mum/2009 Further Para 2 of the order should be read as Except for Ground Nos. 1,2, 16 and 18 , all the remaining grounds are covered. To this extent para 2 of the order passed by this Tribunal stands modified. 4. The next point raised by the assessee in its miscellaneous application in para 5 of is as under:- 5. In para 2.1 on page 2, it is stated that; Respectfully following the orders of the A Y.s. 2008-09, 1999-2000, 2000-07 and 2001-02 (supra), we decide grounds no.3a., 4 and 5 against the assessee. In the above para, Ground No 3a has been wrongly q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed ground No.16 raised by the assessee thereon. We find that, now the assessee has preferred a miscellaneous application on the ground that the Co-ordinate Bench decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Trent Ltd. in ITA No.1073/Mum/2005 dated 18/05/2012 was not considered by this Tribunal while adjudicating this issue. He argued that non-consideration of the Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Tribunal would constitute mistake apparent on record warranting rectification u/s.254(2) of the Act. 5.1. We find that when the authorised representative of the assessee had conceded the issue before this Tribunal at the time of hearing in view of the retrospective amendment brought in the statute, there cannot be any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 'Assessed Income', gross total income of ₹ 7,68,35.530/- has been wrongly reported instead of total income of ₹ 7,44,69, 530/-. 7.1. On verification of records, we find that the claim of the assessee to be correct and accordingly, the figures mentioned in the table in para 1 of our order dated 21/03/2018 for the A.Y.2003-04 had to be read as under:- Returned loss ₹ 107,83,98,160/- as against returned income wrongly mentioned . Further under the head assessed income, this Tribunal had wrongly mentioned the gross total income figure of ₹ 7,68,35,530 instead of total income figure of ₹ 7,44,69,530/-. 7.2. Accordingly, Para 1 of the order dated 21/03/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of miscellaneous application herein fairly stated that the mistake had crept in in the chart given by the assessee. Hence, we hold that aforesaid figure mentioned in para 11 page 16 of the order dated 21/03/2018 should be read at 29.34 Crores instead of ₹ 6.16 Crores. Accordingly, the issues raised in para 5 to 8 by the assessee in its miscellaneous application are dismissed. 10. The last issue raised by the assessee is with regard to non-adjudication of ground No.12 by this Tribunal on the aspect of provision for warranty of ₹ 23,48,01,000/- u/s.115JB of the Act. 10.1. On verification of the facts, we find that this issue has not been adjudicated by this Tribunal. Hence, we find the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
