2014 (1) TMI 196 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake Mistake apparent on the face of record u/s 254(2) of the Act - Held that - The mistake, if any, is in the order of DRP and not in the order of the Tribunal - This being not a mistake apparent from record is declined to be rectified - Travelling expenses to Singapore has also been restored back to the file of DRP thus, there is no mistake on this issue also as it does not fall within the category of mistake apparent from record as envisaged in section 254(2) of the Act - As per table TPO had determined the mean margin of 26.59% - However, this has wrongly been typed as 26.39% and 26.50% respectively - The same being obvious mistake is accepted to be rectified and percentage written as 26.39% and 26.50% will be replaced with 26.59% - Decided partly in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Rectification of mistakes in the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.8673/Mum/2011.

Issue 1: Incorrect amount mentioned in the order
The assessee filed a miscellaneous application contending that there were mistakes in the Tribunal's order. The mistakes included incorrect amounts mentioned in the order. The Tribunal clarified that the figure in question was taken from the order passed by the Ld. DRP, and any mistake would lie in the DRP's order, not the Tribunal's. As the alleged mistake was not apparent from the record, it was declined to be rectified.

Issue 2: Consideration of expenses related to travelling to Singapore
The assessee argued that the Tribunal failed to consider their contention that certain expenses related to traveling to Singapore were in the nature of reimbursement. The Tribunal noted that this issue had been restored back to the file of Ld. DRP. While the DRP was not specifically directed to examine this aspect, they were not precluded from doing so, and the assessee could present their case in the restored proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to rectify this alleged mistake as it did not fall under the category of a mistake apparent from the record.

Issue 3: Typographical errors in mentioning mean margin of comparables
A typographical error was pointed out in the Tribunal's order regarding the mean margin of comparables. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake and accepted it to be rectified. The incorrect percentages mentioned in the order were replaced with the correct figure of 26.59%.

Issue 4: Typographical error in recording the contention of the assessee
Another typographical mistake was identified in the order concerning the recording of the assessee's contention. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal agreed that the relevant text in the order should be replaced with the correct version provided by the assessee. This was deemed a typographical mistake and rectified accordingly.

Issue 5: Incorrect figure in respect of marketing services
The assessee pointed out an error in the figure mentioned in the order related to marketing services. The Tribunal verified the error with the TPO's order and corrected the figure as per the TPO's findings. The miscellaneous application was partly allowed based on the rectifications made.

This judgment highlights the process of rectifying mistakes in a Tribunal's order, clarifying the scope of rectification, and addressing typographical errors to ensure accuracy in the legal record.