IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM M.A.NO.159/MUM/2016 (Arising out of I.T.A.No.6813/Mum/2012) M.A.No.160/MUM/2016 (Arising out of I.T.A.No.6811/MUM/2012) (Assessment Year : 2007-2008) Metmin Finance and Vs. DCIT-3(2), Mumbai Holdings Private Limited, 161/162, Mittal Court, Wingh, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 PAN/GIR No. : AAACM4026 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jishan Jain with Haresh G. Buch Revenue by : Shri Jeevan Lad Date of Hearing : 14/10/2016 Date of Pronouncement : 14/10/2016 ORDER PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): M.A.NO.159/Mum/2016 M.A 159/Mum/2016 arose out of order of tribunal dated 30/03/2016 in ITA No.6813/Mum/2012. 2. Through this MA, it was submitted by learned AR that Ground No.1,4 and 6 were not pressed during course of hearing on March 22, 2016. However, issues in respect of disallowance under Section 14A of Act (Ground No.2 and 3) and denial of set off of current year s unabsorbed depreciation against income from other sources (Ground No.5) were argued and heard during course of 2 M.A.No.159 & 160/2016 Metmin Investment and Trading Pvt.Ltd., hearing. Hon ble Tribunal has also adjudicated these grounds for captioned appeal (ITA No.6813/M/2012) at page no. 5 Paragraph 13 of order dated March 30, 2016. 3. It was further submitted that Hon ble Tribunal in paragraph 13 has given reference to reasoning mentioned at paragraph 12 which pertains to issue of denial of set off of current year s unabsorbed depreciation against income from other sources and inadvertently did not mention paragraphs 7 and 8 where tribunal had given reasoning on issue of disallowance under section 14A of Act. 4. We have considered rival contentions and gone through miscellaneous application filed by assessee and also order of Tribunal and found that there is apparent mistake in order of Tribunal in so far as in paragraph 13, in addition to reference to paragraph 12, give reference to paragraphs 7 & 8, which directs AO to restrict disallowance to extent of 5% of exempt dividend income and to exclude shares held by assessee as stock in trade for purpose of calculating average investments while working on disallowance under Rule 8D. Accordingly, we rectify apparent mistake and direct AO to read in para 13 reference of not only para 12 but also para 7 & 8. We direct accordingly. 5. In result, MA is allowed. M.A.No.160/MUM/2016 3 M.A.No.159 & 160/2016 Metmin Investment and Trading Pvt.Ltd., M.A 160/M/2016 arose out of order of tribunal dated 30/03/2016 in ITA No.6811/Mum/2012. 6. Through this MA, it was submitted by learned AR that Ground No.1,3 and 4 were not pressed during course of hearing on March 22, 2016. However, issue of denial of set off of current year s unabsorbed depreciation against income from other sources (Ground No.2) was argued and heard during course of hearing. Hon ble Tribunal has also adjudicated this ground for captioned appeal (ITA No.6811/M/2012) at page No.4, Paragraph 9-12 of order dated March 30,2016. 7. It was further submitted that inadvertently at paragraph 2, paragraph 14 and paragraph 15 of order, it is mentioned that appeal in ITA No.6811/M/2012 is not pressed and consequently dismissed. 8. In view of above, it was prayed that paragraph 2,14 & 15 may kindly be rectified so that ground No. 2 with regard to allowing set off unabsorbed depreciation against income from other sources should be decided by AO afresh in terms of direction given by Tribunal in para 9 of its Order dated 30/03/2016. 9. We have carefully gone through miscellaneous application as well as order of Tribunal dated 30/03/2016 and found that Ground No.1,3 & 4 were not pressed, however, Ground No.2 was pressed and same was also dealt by Tribunal at Page No.4 paragraph 9 & 12 and after considering in detail Tribunal has restored matter back to file of AO with direction to decide 4 M.A.No.159 & 160/2016 Metmin Investment and Trading Pvt.Ltd., issue afresh in light of observation made in para 9,10,11 & 12 of order dated 30/03/2016. Thus, there arose mistake apparent in para 2, 14 & 15 wherein it is inadvertently mentioned that 6811/Mum/2012 is dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, we rectify said mistake in our order and direct AO to consider ground No.2 as per direction given by Tribunal at para 9,10, 11 & 12 of its order. We direct accordingly. 10. In result MA filed by assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on this 14/10/2016 Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 14/10/2016 Karuna, Sr. PS /Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent. 3. CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5.DR, ITAT, Mumbai BY ORDER, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// / (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Metmin Finance and Holdings Private Limited v. DCIT-3(2), Mumbai