“mistake apparent from record”

Ashida Electronics Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalashida Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. A-308, Ashida House, Road No.21, Wagle Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan: Aabca5020G ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Centralized Processing Center, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru-560500 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Utkarsha Bhanap Respondent By : Sh. Mehul Jain Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

while processing the return of Income u/s 143(1) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the same was not mistake apparent from record and that the payment of employees contribution of particular fund and Employee State Insurance before the due date of filing the return of income prescribed

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, Mumbai vs. Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleorient Overseas Container Line Limited V. Dcit(It)-3(2)(2) C/O. Oocl (India) Private Limited 16Th Floor Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor Air India Building Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills Nariman Point Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaaco5679E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

bringing to the notice of the Assessing Officer 4 Orient Overseas Container Line Limited certain mistakes apparent on record. For the sake of clarity, it is reproduced below: - “Short Grant of credit of Tax deducted at source ('TDS') 1.1 For the captioned AY, an amount ... Form 26AS is enclosed as Annexure 6. 1.4 In view of the above, we request your goodself to kindly rectify the said mistake apparent from record and grant balance TDS credit of Rs. 4,35,455. 2. Short Grant of credit of Advance taxes paid 2.1. For the captioned

Immarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose and ground raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleinmarsat Global Limited V. Dcit (It) – 2(2)(1) Ernst & Young Llp Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor 14Th Floor, The Ruby Air India Building, Nariman Point 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400021 Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aaaci6098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarati Sathe Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S

Nitin Parkash, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 817/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 1540/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Mr. Nitin Parkash , 221/222, Swasstik Plaza, Pokhran Road No.2, Subhash Nagar, Thane (W) – 400 601 Pan: Aaspp-1411-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Thane. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.817/Mum/2015 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 01/01/2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. This Appeal Is In The Second Round Before The Tribunal. Earlier This Appeal Of The Assessee Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 19/03/2018. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application, Vide Ma No.271/Mum/2018 Seeking

principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned two judgements, we are of the view that there is „mistake apparent from record’, therefore, we recall our decision on ground no. 2 of the appeal in order dated 19.03.18 and direct the Registry to fix the matter

Nitin Parkash, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 817/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 1540/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Mr. Nitin Parkash , 221/222, Swasstik Plaza, Pokhran Road No.2, Subhash Nagar, Thane (W) – 400 601 Pan: Aaspp-1411-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Thane. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.817/Mum/2015 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 01/01/2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. This Appeal Is In The Second Round Before The Tribunal. Earlier This Appeal Of The Assessee Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 19/03/2018. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application, Vide Ma No.271/Mum/2018 Seeking

principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned two judgements, we are of the view that there is „mistake apparent from record’, therefore, we recall our decision on ground no. 2 of the appeal in order dated 19.03.18 and direct the Registry to fix the matter

M/S. Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax, Circle 13(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

learned AO as there is more than one view of the same issue and thus it cannot be construed that there is mistake apparent from record. The Appellant prays that the rectification order passed by the learned AO be squashed.” 3. To adjudicate on this appeal, only a few material ... merits but it is a case in which not declining the interest under section 244A for this period has been treated as a mistake apparent on record, which, by implication, means that it is "an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn

Smt. Monica Chattopadhya, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-28(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesmt. Monica Chattopadhya V. Acit – Circle – 28(2) 321, Reena Complex Tower No. 6 R.N. Road, Vidyavihar (W) Vashi Railway Commercial Complex Navi Mumbai-400703 Mumbai – 400086 Pan: Ajipc1975D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Malav P. Sheth Department By : Mahita Nair

appreciating that the additions of Rs 28,08,320/- being made by the learned AO under rectification proceedings u/s 154 is without any mistake apparent from records. Thus the additions made being bad-in-law must be deleted. 1.2. Without prejudice to the above and without admitting, on the facts ... said notice is produced herewith. On perusal of the same, your Honours will note that it did not state details of the mistake apparent from records. 13. Thus Your Honour's will note that the basic ingredient in order to initiate the rectification proceedings u/s 154 was absent rendering

Kirtida Rameshchandra Chandarana, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is fully allowed with consequential relief in terms of reversal of interest charged u/s 234B and 234C with immediate grant of refund if any with consequential i...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalkirtida Rameshchandra Chandarana, Flat No. 74, 7Th Floor, Sangita, Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aadpc1459Q ...... Appellant Vs. Cit (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ameet Patel Respondent By : Sh. Vijay Kumar Soni, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

further noted that the proceedings u/s 154 can be done only in the cases where there is a mistake apparent from record and no debatable issue is involved in this case the record before us clearly established that there is no mistake apparent from record as far as assessee ... documents which has been processed and issued by the department itself on which assessee relied, how there can be a case of mistake apparent from record. May be there is a 5 ITA No. 122/Mum/2022-Kirtida Rameshchandra Chandarana mismatch in the data pertaining to assessee and data pertaining to deductor (processed

Abbott Healthcare P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.570/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Abbott Healthcare Private Limited., 4, Corporate Park, Sion -Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071. Pan: Aaack-3935-D ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Raghavendra Singh/ Lokesh Shah/Kiran Belkar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt. Monica Khare सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

paid. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further asserted that non-consideration of judgment by a Jurisdictional High Court is a mistake apparent from record. To buttress his submissions he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra

Shri. Pranay Arvind Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19 (2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

appellate order, only possibility available to learned CIT(A) to interfere with the order so passed by her is to rectify any mistake apparent from record under the authority of sec. 154 of the Act. He further submitted that that the concept of “mistake apparent from record” is well established ... that the tax authorities are not entitled to review their earlier order under the garb of rectification of mistake apparent from record. The Learned AR further submitted that learned CIT(A) has no authority to recall the 5 Shri Pranay Arvind Shah order passed by her earlier. In any case

Anjali Bhoomi Developers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 22(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee on the disputed issue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Anjali Bhoomi Vs. Ito – 22(3)(1) Developers Room No. 306, 3Rd Gajra Group, Shop No.8 Floor, Tower No. 6, Shivaji Market, Ground Vashi Rly Stn, Navi Floor, Opp Apmc Grain Mumbai – 400705. Market, Plot No. 8 & 9, Sector-19D, Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400709 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanfa8262H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Manoj Sinha.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm:

assessee’s appeal. Since omission to decide the ground raised by the parties in appeal memorandum falls within the amibit of of mistake apparent from record, we recalled the order dated 27.09.2019 for a limited purpose of adjudicating ground No. 5 raised by the order assessee in its appeal

National Stock Exchange Investor Protection Fund Trust, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT (Exemption) -2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act could have made adjustments only of there was mistake apparent from records [as per the law which was in force during AY. 2015-16]. And 2 A.Y. 2015-16 National Stock Exchange Investor drew our attention to Section