What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal admitted the error and corrected the previous order. The disallowance on account of making charges amounting to Rs.49,83,491/- for AY 2014-15 was directed to be deleted.

The assessee pointed out a typographical error in a previous ITAT order. The order incorrectly stated that a disallowance was made instead of deleted.

What were the issues?

Correction of a typographical error in a previous tribunal order regarding the deletion of a disallowance.

ACIT vs Saurav Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. | ITAT Mumbai 2023

The assessee’s authorised representative vide letter dated 29/12/2022 had brought to our attention that in para 3.14 of our order in for A.Y.2014-15 dated 28/10/2022, this Tribunal had made a typographical error.

We have gone through the said letter and find substance in the same and admit that there is a typographical error for which this corrigendum is hereby issued.

As rightly stated by the assessee, this Tribunal had deleted the disallowance made on account of making charges amounting to Rs.49,83,491/- for A.Y.2014-15. But, however, while concluding in para 3.14, this Tribunal had erroneously mentioned the word “disallowed” instead of “deleted”. Accordingly, the revised para 3.14 shall be read as under:-

“3.14. In view of the above, the disallowance made on account of making charges amounting to Rs.49,83,491/- for A.Y.2014-15 is hereby directed to be deleted. Accordingly, the ground Nos.2 & 3 raised by the assessee are allowed.”

All other contents of the Tribunal order dated 28/10/2022 shall remain unchanged. This corrigendum shall be read as part and parcel of the earlier Tribunal order dated 28/10/2022.

ACIT- CC- 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SAURAV JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments