2021 (4) TMI 757 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 254 - Appeal against the 12A rejection Order passed by CIT (Exemption) Mumbai Asstt Year 2017-18 - HELD THAT - We find that the mistakes have crept in the order of the Tribunal and accordingly we rectify the mistakes as follows - In first paragraph line no. 2 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be read as Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) and learned CIT(A) should be read as learned CIT(E) (i)Paragraph 3, 6th line (ii) paragraph 4, 3rd line (iii) paragraph 5, 4th line the word learned CIT(A) should be read as learned CIT(E) In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of Mistakes Apparent from Record in the Tribunal's Order

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai, the assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of mistakes apparent from the record in the Tribunal's order in an Income Tax Appeal. The issue arose due to a typographical error where "Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)" was incorrectly mentioned instead of "Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)" and "learned CIT(A)" instead of "learned CIT(E)." The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and perusing the record, rectified the mistakes as requested by the assessee. The Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, thereby correcting the errors in the order. The order was pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules on 16.2.2021.

This judgment highlights the importance of rectifying mistakes apparent from the record in the Tribunal's order. It showcases the procedural aspect of addressing typographical errors to ensure accuracy in legal documents. The Tribunal's decision to rectify the errors based on the assessee's application demonstrates the adherence to principles of fairness and justice in the legal process. The specific corrections made in the order emphasize the precision required in legal terminology to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation. Overall, the judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of maintaining accuracy and clarity in legal proceedings to uphold the integrity of the judicial system.