Scheme of rule 13 does not permit a rectification application being entertained from a person other than assessee, Assessing Officer or DRP itself and, thus, miscellaneous application filed by TPO before DRP for rectifying various mistakes in order of DRP would not be maintainable. Tribunal also held that since no mistake was apparent from record, directions passed by DRP to rectify its order on basis of application made by TPO was quashed. Followed ITO v. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), CIT v. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (1993) 203 ITR 497 (Bom) and CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2021) 323 CTR 873/ 208 DTR 113 (SC) (AY. 2016-17)
Shapoorji Pallonji Bumi Armada (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 220 TTJ 951 / 139 taxmann.com 572 (Mum)(Trib)
S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Rectification application-Rule 13 does not permit a rectification application being entertained from a person other than assessee, Assessing Officer or DRP itself-Miscellaneous application filed by TPO before DRP for rectifying various mistakes in order of DRP would not be maintainable.[S.92C, 154, Rule 13]