TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by this Tribunal dated 21/03/2018. 2. We find that the assessee in para 3 of its miscellaneous application had pointed out as under:- "3. Under the details of Return of Income for AY 2002-03 on page 1, returned income has been inadvertently stated as Rs. 156,34,64,632/- instead of returned loss of Rs. 156,34,64,632/-." 2.1. We find that claim of assessee to be correct and accordingly, we modify the order of this Tribunal in page 1 thereon, that returned loss should be Rs. 156,34,64,632/- as against returned income wrongly mentioned in the tabulation in the said order. 3. We find that the assessee has mentioned in para 4 of its miscellaneous application as under:- "4. In para 2 on page 1, it is stated that: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been wrongly quoted in place of Ground No 3. In the table produced on page 2 of the order, it can be seen that Ground No 3 is decided against the Assessee and Ground No 3a is decided in favour of the Assessee. 4.1. On verification of the records, we find the claim of the assessee to be correct and accordingly, para 2.1 of the order dated 21/03/2018 stands modified as under:- "Respectfully following the orders of the A.Y.s.2008-09, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 (supra), we decide the grounds no.3,4 and 5 against the assessee. Grounds No.10,12 and 15 are set aside and remaining grounds are decided in favour of the assessee." 5. The next ground raised by the assessee in its miscellaneous application is with regard to upholdi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quoted the aforesaid decision of Mumbai Tribunal at the time of hearing. Hence, the request of the ld. AR that the aforesaid Mumbai Tribunal decision had not been considered deserves to be dismissed. In any case, when the ld. AR admits at the time of hearing that the said ground was not pressed by him in view of the retrospective amendment in the statute and especially the fact of admission by the ld. AR is not in dispute before us, in our considered opinion, the same would only constitute mistake committed by the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee. Hence, it would not fall under the ambit of mistake apparent on record committed by the Tribunal in the order warranting rectification u/s.254(2) of the Act. Hence, the ground raised by the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 16, the amount of expenditure in respect of Euro II project has been wrongly stated as Rs. 5.14 lakhs instead of Rs. 54.14 lakhs. 8.1. On verification of the records, we find the claim of the assessee to be correct and accordingly, the tabulation mentioned in page 16 para 8 under ground No.6 should be read as under:- "Development Expenses- Euro III Project - 54.14 Lakhs - decided against the assessee" 9. We find that assessee has raised a similar ground with regard to addition for provision for doubtful debts while computing book profits u/s.115JB of the Act as was raised by it for the A.Y.2002-03. We have already held hereinabove for the A.Y.2002-03 that the same would not constitute mistake on record from the side of the ....