ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR vs. SHRI DILIP MEHTA, JABALPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal is rectifying minor errors in its previous order. The substance of the decision remains unchanged, with the corrigendum only addressing grammatical and textual inaccuracies.
What were the facts?
This judgment is a corrigendum to a previous order passed by the ITAT Jabalpur Bench. It rectifies several omissions and errors in the original order concerning the appeals of Dilip Mehta (Prop. Rajul Builders) for the Assessment Year 2009-10.
What were the issues?
The primary issue is the rectification of errors in a previously passed ITAT order. The specific legal issues that led to the original order are not detailed in this corrigendum.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
CORRIGENDUM Per Sanjay Arora, AM Order under section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) in the captioned appeals was passed on 05/08/2022. It is, however, found that there have occurred certain omissions in the said order, which are, therefore, hereby sought to be rectified through this corrigendum order. The same being CO No. 29/2013 (AY: 2009-10) Dilip Mehta only correction of those errors, do not therefore per se cause any prejudice to either party. The details are as under:- Para 4.4 : At page 7, the word ‘customers’ in the sentence beginning with the words ‘The onus, thus, to …., be followed by the word ‘the’. Para 4.8 a). In sub-para 2 (pg. 14), beginning with the words ‘One could argue that……’, the word ‘is’ be read between the words ‘which’ and ‘itself’ in the second sentence beginning with the words ‘The assessee is admittedly….’ b). A comma (,) be inserted after the word ‘caution’ in the following sentence, beginning with the words ‘We state this as a…..’ (sub-para 2, pg. 14) c). The word ‘of’ between the words ‘drawing’ and ‘adverse’ in the sentence beginning with the words ‘Even otherwise, non-production of the….’, be omitted (sub-para 2, pg. 15) Para 4.10 a). The word ‘be’ in the sentence beginning with the words ‘How could the AO….’, be omitted (pg. 16) b). The following sentence be read after the sentence ‘It is all this…. ….extending to years.’ in sub-para 1 (at pg. 17 of the order): ‘Not only, thus, the land owner/s waits for years for credit by the assessee, i.e., only when the sale deed is finally registered and the sale booked, he is not paid the amount credited, which thus piles up in crores! Why, we wonder, considering it a tripartite arrangement, the land owner/s paid his share – clearly defined, and on which the assessee, irrespective of the time period for which he may retain it, has no right – as soon as it is received? b). A new sub-para (# 2) of para 4.10 be read beginning with the sentence next following, i.e., ‘The ld. CIT(A), though noting that the land owner…..’ (pg. 17) c). Para (4.11) is to start from the sentence beginning with the words: ‘The issue qua the genuineness of these credits,…..’ (pg. 17)
Para 4.11 (pg. 17)
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026