What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the typographical errors and issued a corrigendum to rectify them. The corrections involved updating the assessee's name, PAN, and assessment year as per the application.

The assessee filed an application pointing out typographical errors in a previous ITAT order. These errors pertained to the correct name of the assessee, its PAN number, and the assessment year in specific appeals.

What were the issues?

The core issue was the correction of factual inaccuracies in a previously issued ITAT order, specifically regarding the assessee's identity and the relevant assessment years.

JCIT vs Edelweiss Financial Advisors… | ITAT Ahmedabad 2021

The assessee has filed an application dated 07/12/2020 pointing out typographical errors, apparent from the record, crept in pages 1 and 54 of the order dated 03/12/2020 mentioning the correct name, PAN number, Assessment Year at respective places.

It is pleaded in the application that in page no 1 bearing 445/Ahd/2016 (Department appeals) name as mentioned in the ITAT order is as Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd. [Formerly Known Anagram Stock Broking Ltd], instead of the correct position as mentioned in the first page of the assessment order. Thus, the error crept in the page no.1 stands rectified and may be read as Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd. [Formerly Known Anagram Capital Ltd].

2.1 Secondly, in the appeals of the Department bearing Nos.413 & 445/Ahd/2016, Pan Card No. has been wrongly mentioned as “AABCA9956F” instead of “AABCA2916K”. Thus, the error crept in the page no.1 stands rectified and may be read as “AABCA2916K”.

Asstt. Year 2010-11 & others 3 2.2 Thirdly, at page no.1 of the order in Revenue’s appeal bearing Assessment Year has been wrongly mentioned as A.Y. 2012-13 instead of A.Y. 2011-12. Similar mistake is also made in the head line at page no.57 of the order which is mentioned as “Coming to ITA No. 445/Ahd/2016 (A.Y. 2012- 13) Revenue’s Appeal” wherein the Assessment Year is wrongly mentioned as A.Y. 2012-13 instead of A.Y. 2011-12. Thus, the error crept in the page no.1 and head line at page no.57 stands rectified and may be read as Assessment Year 2011- 12.

Therefore, this corrigendum is being issue to remove the above mistakes and it is hereby rectified as such.

Order pronounced in the Court on 24/02/2021 at Ahmedabad.

THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3, AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments