2021 (1) TMI 1065 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - in Para 8 of the order the Tribunal inadvertently typed that the Assessing Officer disregarded application for admission for additional evidence submitted by the assessee, and there is no specific comment in the remand report filed by the Assessing Officer before the CIT(A) - HELD THAT - There is inadvertent mistake in the Para 7 that of typographical and in Para 8 that of mistake regarding the facts of the case. Hence, the present misc. application is allowed and we modify both the paras as follows and the same should be read in the original order dated 23.10.2020 as under - 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. During the hearing the Ld. AR submitted that application under Rule 27 filed by the assessee has to be withdrawn. Therefore, we are dismissing the application under Rule 27 as withdrawn by the assessee Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of typographical errors in the order dated 23/10/2020.
2. Correction of factual errors in the observations of the CIT(A) in the order dated 23/10/2020.

Analysis:
1. The Miscellaneous Application was filed by the assessee to rectify errors in the order dated 23/10/2020. The Ld. AR pointed out that a typographical error occurred in Para 7, where Rule 26 was quoted instead of Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunals) Rules 1963. Additionally, in Para 8, the Tribunal incorrectly mentioned that the Assessing Officer disregarded the application for admission of additional evidence by the assessee, whereas the correct facts were presented by the CIT(A) in the observations. The Ld. AR argued that no additional evidence was submitted by the assessee, and there was no remand report called by the CIT(A, indicating a mistake in the Tribunal's order.

2. The Ld. DR acknowledged that the errors were typographical and inadvertent. After hearing both parties and examining the record, the Tribunal concluded that there were mistakes in Para 7 and Para 8 of the order dated 23/10/2020. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application and modified the paragraphs. The corrected version of Para 7 stated that the application under Rule 27 filed by the assessee was to be withdrawn, leading to its dismissal. Regarding Para 8, the Tribunal clarified that the CIT(A) had made a categorical finding that the transfer of the Rolling Division at Satharia was pursuant to an MOU between the two companies, which was submitted before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized that all necessary documents were available before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), supporting the assessee's position. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed based on the findings of the CIT(A).

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, rectifying the errors in the order dated 23/10/2020 and upholding the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the transfer of the Rolling Division at Satharia.