SMT. SANGITA JAIN, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SUNIL KUMAR JAIN,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JABALPUR

ITA 147/JAB/2013Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur31 January 2022AY 2003-20042 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to correct minor errors in the original order, including punctuation, word omissions, and numerical figures. These corrections clarify the original intent and do not alter the substantive outcome of the appeal.

What were the facts?

This judgment is a corrigendum to a previous order concerning assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 for Sangeeta Jain (L/R of Late Sunil Kumar Jain). The corrigendum rectifies typographical errors and omissions in the original order without prejudice to the parties.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the rectification of typographical errors and omissions in a prior ITAT order. The corrigendum aimed to ensure the accuracy and clarity of the original judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA Nos. 147 &148/Jab/2013 Sangeeta Jain v. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR (SMC) (through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.147 & 148/JAB/2013 Assessment Years: 2003-04 & 2004-05 Sangeeta Jain (L/R of Late Sunil Income Tax Officer vs. Ward - 1(1), Kumar Jain), Jabalpur Jabalpur (M.P.) [PAN: ADTPJ 8377P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Sanjay Seth, FCA Respondent by Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. DR

CORRIGENDUM Per Sanjay Arora, AM The captioned appeals were disposed on 31/01/2022. Subsequently, however, it was found to suffer from certain typographical errors and omissions, which are hereby sought to be rectified per this corrigendum, which though does not in any manner prejudice any of the parties, and is accordingly issued by the Bench u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1. In para 5.2 (page 5) of the Order, in the last sentence, beginning with the words: ‘No argument in respect of….’ a comma (,) be inserted before the words ‘were advanced’.

In para 5.3 (page 5) of the Order, in the second sentence beginning with the words: ‘The same would, ….’ a comma (,) be inserted after word: ‘obtain’.

In the last sub-para (beginning with the words: ‘Shri Seth would also…’) of para 5.3 (pg.9) of the order, in the sentence beginning with the words: ‘Shri Halder failing to….’ the word ‘para’ occurring between the words ‘thereby’ and Sangeeta Jain v. ITO ‘restricted’ be omitted. Also the numeral ‘₹.3,89,274’ in the said sub-para be read as ‘₹.3,59,274’.

Sub-para 5.4(D)(pg. 12) of the order, which reads as under: ‘D. Unaccounted Expenditure u/s. 69C: No addition for the same shall survive in view of, as afore-explained, addition of gross profit, which subsumes indirect expenditure. (also see paras 5.2, 7)’ be read as: ‘D. Unaccounted Expenditure/Household withdrawals u/s. 69C: No addition for the same shall survive in view of, as afore-explained, addition of gross profit, which subsumes (indirect) expenditure. (also see paras 5.2, 7)’

In sub-para 2 of para 5.5 (pg. 13), beginning with the words:’ I am also conscious…’, in the sentence beginning with the words: ‘This is as once it is established….’, the word ‘of’ after the word ‘purchases’ be read as ‘for’.

In the last sub-para of para 6.4 (pg. 19) of the order, in the last sentence beginning with the words: ‘Then, again, it is only….’ the words ‘as to for what purpose’ be read as ‘the purpose for which’.

In para 7 (pg. 21), in the sentence beginning with the words: In fact, the earliest such purchase…’, the words ‘six’ and ‘end-October’ be read as ‘eight’ and ‘end-December’ respectively. (Sanjay Arora) Accountant Member Dated: 01/02/2022 Copy of the Order forwarded to:

The Appellant: Smt. Sangeeta Jain, legal heir of Late Sunil Kumar Jain, Prop. M/s. Aazad Collection, Dulari Haat, Jawaharganj, Jabalpur (M.P.)

The Respondent: Income Tax Officer Ward -1(1), Jabalpur

The Pr. CIT-1, Jabalpur

The CIT(A), Jabalpur

The Sr. DR, ITAT, Jabalpur

Guard File //// 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →