2020 (12) TMI 1320 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 154 - HELD THAT - At page 60, paragraph 47 is, on account of a typographical error, numbered as paragraph 37. Accordingly, 37 in the beginning of this paragraph stands substituted by 47 ; and, all remaining paragraphs are renumbered as 48 to 67, instead of 38 to 57. At page 60-61, certain observations were made about Mr Cyrus Mistry. One fact, which was inadvertently missed out, was that the information furnished by Mr Mistry was in response to a notice. Under these circumstances, the observations made in para-38, which is now renumbered on account of typographical mistake as para-48, is modified by substituting as under - 48. It is well known that Cyrus Mistry, a former Chairman of the Tata Group, was removed from his position in the Tata Group on 24th October 2016, and within eight weeks of his removal, he sends this material in response to notice, against the trusts in the Tata group - including the assessee before us, to the Assessing Officer. The inputs from those engaged in a rivalry with an assessee ought to have been considered by the department with a reasonable degree of circumspection and should not be placed on such a high pedestal so as to relegate all other material facts and accepted past assessment history of the case into insignificance. The above mistakes stand rectified accordingly, and, to that extent, the order dated 28th December, 2020 stands modified.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of errors in the order dated 28th December, 2020 passed by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai regarding observations made about Mr. Cyrus Mistry in response to a notice.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai, in a corrigendum, rectified inadvertent errors in their order dated 28th December, 2020. The first error corrected was the numbering of paragraphs, where paragraph 47 was mistakenly numbered as paragraph 37. This error was rectified by substituting "37" with "47" at the beginning of the paragraph, and all remaining paragraphs were renumbered from 48 to 67 instead of 38 to 57. The second error addressed observations made about Mr. Cyrus Mistry in response to a notice. The Tribunal acknowledged that the information provided by Mr. Mistry was in response to a notice, which was inadvertently missed out in the initial order. Therefore, paragraph 38, now renumbered as paragraph 48, was modified to reflect this by stating that the inputs from those engaged in a rivalry with an assessee should be considered with circumspection and not given undue weight over other material facts and the past assessment history of the case.

The corrections made by the Tribunal do not impact the outcome of the appeal, and the order dated 28th December, 2020 stands modified accordingly. The rectification ensures that the observations regarding Mr. Cyrus Mistry are accurately reflected in light of the information being provided in response to a notice. The Tribunal emphasizes the importance of considering all relevant material facts and past assessment history of a case, rather than solely relying on inputs from parties engaged in a rivalry with an assessee. This clarification aims to maintain the integrity and fairness of the assessment process, ensuring that all relevant information is duly considered in reaching a decision.