Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Rohit S. Vishwasrao, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward 32(3)(2), ... on 16 February, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"D" Bench, Mumbai
Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member
and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member
MA No. 222/Mum/2017
(Arising out of ITA No. 6700/Mum/2016)
(Assessment Year: 2012-13)
Shri Rohit S. Vishwasrao Income Tax Officer-32(3)(2)
104, Raj Shree Royal Complex Mumbai
Eksar Road, Borivali (W) Vs.
Mumbai 400063
PAN - ADJHPV4439N
Applicant Respondent
Applicant by: Shri Dharmesh Shah
Respondent by: Shri Sauarabh Kumar Rai
Date of Hearing: 16.02.2018
Date of Pronouncement: 16.02.2018
ORDER
Per Rajesh Kumar, AM
The present miscellaneous application is arising out of ITA No. 6700/Mum/2017 filed by the assessee requesting to rectify the mistake which is apparent from the face of the order dated 29.03.2017.
2. The learned A.R. submitted before the Bench that at the time of hearing the appeal it was submitted that Form No. 10DB is not applicable to the assessee as the same is applicable where the claim of rebate in respect of Securities Transaction Tax (STT) is made under Section 88E of Act . The learned A.R. further submitted that the rebate under Section 88E of STT r.w. Rule 20AB was only available till A.Y. 2008-09 as is clear from the provisions of Section 88E(3) of the Act and therefore Form 10DB is not applicable to the current year. The learned A.R. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Tribunal in para 11 of the order dated 29.03.2017 passed in ITA No. 6700/Mum/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13 has given direction to file Form NO.10DB within three months from the receipt of the 2 MA No. 222/Mum/2017 Shri Rohit S. Vishwasrao order where as this is not possible under the law thus constituting an apparent mistake on the face of the order and prayed that the same should be modified to that extent.
3. The learned D.R., on the other hand, opposed to the arguments of the learned A.R. and submitted that the order of the ITAT has been passed after considering the submissions of the assessee and clear findings have been given in the order and thus the same did not contain any mistake which requires any rectification under section 254(2) of the I.T. Act and prayed that the same should be dismissed.
4. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that Form No. 10DB is required to be filed in respect of claim of rebate qua security transaction tax on the transactions carried out on recognised exchanges where the income is assessable under the head "income from business or profession". However we find that w.e.f. A.Y. 2009-10 the rebate under section 88E of the Act has been done away with and therefore Form No. 10DB r.w. Rule 20AB is no more relevant and applicable in the subsequent years. Accordingly we find merit in the submissions of the learned A.R. that such direction was inadvertently incorporated in the order dated 29.03.2017. We accordingly find that it is an apparent mistake to the extent of directing the assessee to file Form No. 10DB within three months from the receipt of this order and same requires rectification. Accordingly the said order is modified to that extent.
5. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16th February, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Joginder Singh) (Rajesh Kumar)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Mumbai, Dated: 16th February, 2018
3 MA No. 222/Mum/2017
Shri Rohit S. Vishwasrao
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A) -concerned
4. The CIT - concerned
5. The DR, "D" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai
By Order
//True Copy//
Assistant Registrar
ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai
n.p.