IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI, BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. No.179 Mds 2016 (in I.T.A. No.1786 Mds 2014) Assessment Year : 2008-09 M s Rm K. Visvanatha Pillai & Sons, Deputy Commissioner of 176F, Trivandrum Road, v. Income Tax, Tirunelveli 627 003. Central Circle IV(1), Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AABFR 1307 C ( Petitioner) ( Respondent) Petitioner by : Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT Date of Hearing : 09.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2016 ORDER PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: assessee has filed present Miscellaneous Petition on ground that there is error in order of this Tribunal dated 01.06.2016. 2. Referring to order of this Tribunal dated 01.06.2016, more particularly, para 30 at page 18, Ld.counsel for 2 M.P. No.179 Mds 16 assessee submitted that Assessing Officer disallowed claim of expenditure towards repairs to extent of `65,71,729 -. During course of appellate proceeding, CIT(Appeals) called for remand report. Assessing Officer verified claim of assessee and found that to extent of ` 64,58,309 - was correct. In fact, this Tribunal, while recording its finding at para 32 at page 19 of order, found that Assessing Officer after verifying material filed by assessee, accepted claim made by assessee to extent of `64,58,309 -. However, while recording its further finding, this Tribunal confirmed order of Assessing Officer. This is only inadvertent error in order of this Tribunal which crept in. When Assessing Officer found that claim of assessee towards repair to extent of `64,58,309 - is correct. claim of assessee to extent of `64,58,309 - has to be allowed. Therefore, there is error in order of this Tribunal. 3. On contrary, Shri Shiva Srinivas, Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that Assessing Officer in remand report claim of assessee to extent of `64,58,309 - is correct, therefore, to that extent, there is prima facie error in order of this Tribunal which needs to be rectified. 3 M.P. No.179 Mds 16 4. We have considered rival submissions on either side and perused relevant material available on record. It is admitted fact that CIT(Appeals) called for remand report during course of first appellate proceeding and Assessing Officer found that claim of assessee to extent of `64,58,309 - is correct. Therefore, out of `65,71,729 -, claim of assessee to extent of `64,58,309 - needs to be allowed. However, this Tribunal confirmed order of Assessing Officer and found that claim of assessee was correct. When Assessing Officer was found that claim of assessee was correct, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that claim needs to be allowed. Therefore, by inadvertent mistake, claim of assessee was confirmed by this Tribunal. Therefore, to that extent, there is error which needs to be rectified under Section 252(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Accordingly, order of this Tribunal in I.T.A. No.786 Mds 2014 is hereby rectified as follows:- At page 19, para 32, following shall be deleted:- 32. ..The Assessing Officer, after verifying material filed by assessee, found that claim made by assessee is correct except to extent of `64,54,309 -. When Assessing Officer found that claim made by assessee is correct, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that CIT(A) 4 M.P. No.179 Mds 16 has rightly confirmed order of Assessing Officer. In absence of any other material available on record to prove genuineness of clam to extent of `64,54,309 -, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that CIT(A) has rightly confirmed order of Assessing Officer. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with order of CIT(A). Accordingly, same is confirmed. Instead following shall be inserted - 32. .The Assessing Officer, after verifying material filed by assessee, found that claim of assessee was correct to extent of `64,58,309 -. In fact, assessee claimed expenditure of `65,71,729 -, out of which assessee filed material to extent of `64,58,309 -, which was found to be correct by Assessing Officer himself. Therefore, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that there is no justification in making disallowance. disallowance, at best, can be made only to extent of `1,13,420 -. Assessing Officer in remand report found that claim of assessee to extent of `64,58,309 - is correct. In absence of any further material, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that claim of assessee to extent of `64,58,309 - needs to be allowed. Accordingly, orders of authorities below are set aside and addition made by Assessing Officer 5 M.P. No.179 Mds 16 to extent of `64,58,309 - is deleted. Assessing Officer has to restrict disallowance only to `1,13,420 - . order of this Tribunal dated 01.06.2016 is rectified accordingly. other part of this order shall remain without any change. 5. In result, Miscellaneous Petition filed by assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 23rd September, 2016 at Chennai. sd - sd - (A. Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Chennai, rd Dated, 23 September, 2016. Kri. Copy to: 1. Petitioner 2. Respondent 3. ( ) CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GF. M/s Rm K. Visvanatha Pillai & Sons v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle IV(1), Chennai