Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore
Shivangi Estates Ltd.,, Indore vs Assessee on 27 April, 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
INDORE BENCH, INDORE
BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARMA, A.M.
M.A.NO.36/IND/2012
Arising out of I.T(SS).A.No. 34/Ind/2010
A.Y. : 2007-08
M/s. Anant Steel Private ACIT,
Limited, 5(1),
Indore. vs Indore.
Applicant Respondent
M.A.NO.37/IND/2012
Arising out of I.T(SS).A.No. 35/Ind/2010
A.Y. : 2007-08
M/s. Shivangi Estates ACIT,
Limited, 5(1),
Indore. vs Indore.
Applicant Respondent
Applicants by : Shri S.N.Agarwal, CA
Department by : Shri Keshave Saxena, CIT DR
Date of Hearing : 27.04.2012
Date of : 23.05.2012
pronouncement
ORDER
PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M.
These Misc. Applications are filed by the assessee in respect of the order of the Tribunal dated 30th December, 2011.
-: 2: -
2. Certain apparent typographical mistakes have been pointed out by the ld. Authorized Representative in the order of the Tribunal dated 30.12.2011.
3. It was pointed out that on page 9 of the order to arrive at the figure of unrecorded sales of Rs. 42,62,88,000/-, the average quantity of bills taken at 16 M. Tons and multiplied 220 days in place of 1284 nos. of invoices issued. As it is an apparent mistake, we rectify the same and direct that figure of 220 days is to be substituted by the word 1284 no.of bills.
4. In the M. A., it was pointed out that on page no.16 of the order while reproducing the version of the order of the CIT(A) in the table the Average rate as adopted by the Assessing Officer in the case of M/s. Anant Steel Pvt.Ltd. of Rs. 20,750/- was inadvertently remains to be mentioned and the said column of the table left blank. Similarly, the actual quantity was inadvertently considered at 123.768 M. tons in place of 12.768 M. Tons.
5. As this is a typographical mistake, we rectify the same and figure of 1223.768 M. Ton is replaced by 12.768 M. Tons. 2
-: 3: -
6. On page 20 of the order in para 13, the amount of income surrendered typed as 89,69,911/- in place of 89,61,911/-. As this is a typographical mistake, we rectify the same.
7. On page 35 in the fifth line from below, the word "contradictory" is required to be substituted by the word "factory". As this is a typographical mistake. We rectify the same. We direct accordingly.
8. The another mistake pointed out in the order of the Tribunal is not an apparent mistake but amounts to review of order. We, therefore, dismiss the same.
9. In the result, the Misc. Applications are allowed in part.
10. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 23rd May, 2012.
(JOGINDER SINGH) ( R.C.SHARMA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated :23rd _May, 2012.
CPU*
301.5
3
-: 4: -
4