CARGOTEC INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT 15(1) (2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 256/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 March 2023AY 2010-112 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for a corrigendum. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits within a period of three months, confirming the oral direction given during the hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee requested a corrigendum to an earlier order, stating that the CIT(A) was orally directed to decide the appeal afresh within 3 months. This request was based on notes recorded during the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether an oral direction given during a hearing can be formally incorporated into an order through a corrigendum, and if so, what is the procedure.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

The request made by the applicant/assessee for issuance of a corrigendum to the effect that a time frame of 3 months was orally given by the Bench to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh, is hereby allowed because it was pronounced at the Bench itself that the Ld. CIT(A) is to decide the appeal on merits within 3 months, which fact is got duly corroborated from the notes recorded in the log book during the course of hearing on 14.07.2022. So corrigendum is hereby issued directing the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits within a period of three months, which is read with order (supra) passed by the Bench. Corrigendum is accordingly issued to be integral part of order (supra).

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →