Dorabji Tata Trust, Mumbai CIT (E)- 2, Mumbai

This document is a corrigendum to an earlier order concerning an appeal by the Dorabji Tata Trust. It rectifies inadvertent errors, specifically renumbering paragraphs and modifying observations made about information provided by Mr. Cyrus Mistry. The corrections clarify that Mr. Mistry's information was submitted in response to a notice and should be considered with circumspection, but they do not alter the original outcome of the appeal.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI F BENCH, MUMBAI

[Coram: Justice P P Bhatt (President) and
Pramod Kumar (Vice President)]

ITA No. 3909/Mum/2019
Assessment year: 2014-15

Sir Dorabji Tata Trust ……………………….Appellant
Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street
Fort, Mumbai 400 001[PAN: AAATS0494G]

Vs

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Exemption Circle 2(1), Mumbai ……………………Respondent
CORRIGENDUM

Per Pramod Kumar VP:

1. As some inadvertent errors have crept in the order dated 28th December, 2020 passed by us, disposing of this appeal, we deem it fit and proper to rectify as under :-

1. At page 60, paragraph 47 is, on account of a typographical error, numbered as paragraph 37. Accordingly, “37” in the beginning of this paragraph stands substituted by “47”; and, all remaining paragraphs are renumbered as 48 to 67, instead of 38 to 57.

2. At page 60-61, certain observations were made about Mr Cyrus Mistry. One fact, which was inadvertently missed out, was that the information furnished by Mr Mistry was in response to a notice. Under these circumstances, the observations made in para-38, which is now renumbered on account of typographical mistake as para-48, is modified by substituting as under:- “48. It is well known that Cyrus Mistry, a former Chairman of the Tata Group, was removed from his position in the Tata Group on 24th October 2016, and within eight weeks of his removal, he sends this material in response to notice, against the trusts in the Tata group - including the assessee before us, to the Assessing Officer. The inputs from those engaged in a rivalry with an assessee ought to have been considered by the department with a reasonable degree of circumspection and should not be placed on such a high pedestal so as to relegate all other material facts and accepted past assessment history of the case into insignificance.”

2. The above mistakes stand rectified accordingly, and, to that extent, the order dated 28th December, 2020 stands modified. The above corrections will have no impact on the outcome of the appeal. The outcome of the appeal thus, remains the same.

Sd/-                                                                      Sd/-
Justice P P Bhatt                                               Pramod Kumar
(President)                                                         (Vice President)

Mumbai, dated the 30th day of December, 2020

Copies to: 
(1) The appellant 
(2) The respondent
(3) CIT 
(4) CIT(A)
(5) DR 
(6) Guard File

By order

Assistant Registrar
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Mumbai benches, Mumbai