Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
United Phosphorus Ltd, Mumbai vs Acit Vapi Cir , Vapi on 14 June, 2019
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.A. No. 229/Mum/2019 in ITA No. 4073/Mum/2003 (A.Y 1997-98)
United Phosphorus Limited ACIT, Vapi Circle,
(Now known as Uniphos Vapi
Enterprises Ltd.), Uniphos House, Vs. Mumbai.
11-C.D. Marg, Madhu Park,
Khar (West),
Mumbai-400052.
PAN: AAACU3440P
Appellant Respondent
Appellant by : Shri Percy Pardiwala with
Ms. Vasanti Patel (AR)
Respondent by : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (DR)
Date of Hearing : 14.06.2019
Date of Pronouncement : 14.06.2019
ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(2)OF INCOME TAX ACT
PER PAWAN SINGH, J.M.
1. This Miscellaneous Application (MA) is filed by the assessee for rectifications of mistake in order dated 12.09.2018 passed in ITA No. 4073/Mum/2003 for Assessment Year (AY) 1997-98. In the application, the applicant/assessee interalia pleaded that there is certain mistake in the order dated 12.09.2018, which are apparent and require rectification.
2. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that in para-18 of the order which relates to ground no. 2(A) on account of deduction in respect of deferred revenue expenses on research and development expenses. The ld. CIT(A) followed the order of his predecessor in Assessment Year 1998-99, which was affirmed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 1519/Ahd/2002. The Tribunal while passing the order on Ground No. 2(A) in para-18 at page no. 17 of the order followed the M.A. No. 229 Mum 2019-United Phosphorus Limited.
decision of Assessment Year 1998-99. However, at the conclusion the word 'deleted' was written instead of upheld. The ld. AR submits that the word 'deleted' is a typographical mistake it should be corrected as 'upheld'.
3. The ld. DR for the revenue not disputed the contention of ld. AR of the assessee.
4. We have perused the order dated 12.09.2018 passed in ITA No. 4073/Mum/2003. We have noted that while adjudicating the Ground No. 2(A) of the appeal, we have followed the decision of Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1998-99 and upheld the action of ld. CIT(A) for the year under consideration. In fact, while adjudicating this ground of appeal, we have upheld the order of ld. CIT(A) Central-VI, Mumbai dated 20.03.2002. However, due to inadvertent and bonafide mistake, the word 'deleted' was written instead of 'upheld'. Considering the submission of parties, we direct that para-18 of the order dated 12.09.2018 in ITA No. 4073/Mum/2003 be read as under:
"18. Considering the decision of co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in appeal for A.Y. 1998-99, wherein the facts are not at any variance, respectfully following the same the disallowance sustained by ld. CIT(A) is sustained"
5. The ld. AR for the assessee further submits that vide Ground No. III. 3.1(a)(b)(c) the assessee claimed the deduction under section 80-I and 80-IA. The ld. AR further submits that the Tribunal while passing the order has not specifically mentioned the items claimed/allowed for inclusion of deduction 2 M.A. No. 229 Mum 2019-United Phosphorus Limited.
under section 80-IA. The ld. AR further submits that all the claims/issues were not covered by the decision of Tribunal for Assessment Year 1998-99 and certainly there were some additional claims/issues relating to deduction under section 80-IA in the appeal for the year under consideration. Thus, certain issues/deduction under section 80-I and 80-IA were not appropriately dealt with by a speaking order. Therefore, non-adjudication of issues/claims by speaking order is a mistake and requires suitable order for rectification of the order. The ld. AR for the assessee prayed that either the Tribunal may specified the item/various claims admissible for deduction under section 80- IA or recall the order qua the said ground(s) of appeal for adjudication afresh.
6. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue submits that he left the decision on these claims at the discretion of Tribunal.
7. We have considered the submission of ld. representative of the parties and perused the order dated 12.09.2018.
8. Considering the fact that while deciding the issue/claim we directed/allowed the grounds on the basis of decision of Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1998-99. We have noted that certain items/claims were not covered by the order of Tribunal for earlier years. Therefore, there is mistake apparent in the order passed by this Tribunal on 12.09.2018. Therefore, the order dated 12.09.2018 is recalled qua Ground No. III. 3.1(a)(b)(c). Since we have recalled the order dated 12.09.2018 qua Ground No. III. 3.1(a)(b)(c), 3 M.A. No. 229 Mum 2019-United Phosphorus Limited.
therefore, the registry is directed to fix the hearing of appeal by regular bench by serving proper notice on the parties.
9. In the result, Misc. Application filed by assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14.06.2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
SHAMIM YAHYA PAWAN SINGH
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Date: 14.06.2019
SK
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. Assessee
2. Respondent
3. The concerned CIT(A)
4. The concerned CIT
5. DR "F" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard File
BY ORDER,
Dy./Asst. Registrar
ITAT, Mumbai
4