SAGAR GRAMIN BANK(PRESENTLY MERGED WITH BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-42, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 174/KOL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 April 2023AY 2007-083 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 issued a corrigendum to rectify the names of the appellant banks in the appeal numbers and the endorsement page. The order was modified to accurately reflect the entities involved in the appeals.

What were the facts?

The assessee bank, Murshidabad Gramin Bank, filed appeals for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. A corrigendum was issued to correct the names of the appellants in the appeal numbers and the endorsement page.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the misidentification of the appellant bank in the case filings. The corrigendum aimed to correct this factual error in the appeal details.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA NO. 173/Kol/2020
ITA No. 174/Kol/2020

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

CORRIGENDUM Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri Soumitra Chowdhury vide his letter dated 21.02.2023 submitted that the name of appellant at page no. 1 has wrongly been mentioned as Murshidabad Gramin Bank (Presently merged with Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank) in &174/Kol/2020 instead of ITA NO. 173/Kol/2020 Murshidabad Gramin Bank (Presently merged with Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank) and Sagar Gramin Bank (Presently merged with Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank) and in the endorsement page Murshidabad Gramin Bank (Presently merged with Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank) instead of i) Murshidabad Gramin Bank (Presently merged with Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank) and ii) Sagar Gramin Bank (Presently merged with Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank). Hence this corrigendum is issued to modify the order accordingly. The impugned order is hereby corrected and it shall be read as follows:

Assessment Year: 2006-07 Murshidabad Gramin Bank Vs. ACIT, Circle-42, Murshidabad (Presently merged with Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank)

2 & 174/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 Murshidabad Gramin Bank (Presently merged with Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank) Sagar Gramin Bank (Presently merged with Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank)

(PAN: AAALB 0462 D) Appellant / (अपीलाथ�) Respondent / ( !यथ�) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sagar Gramin Bank (Presently Vs. ACIT, Circle-42, Murshidabad merged with Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank) (PAN: AAALB 0462 D) Appellant / (अपीलाथ�) Respondent / ( !यथ�)

Copy of the order forwarded to: Appellant- (i) Murshidabad Gramin Bank (Presently merged with Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank), NH-34, BMC House, P.O.- Chuanpur, Berhampore, Murshidabad-742101. (ii) Sagar Gramin Bank (Presently merged with Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank), NH-34, BMC House, P.O.- Chuanpur, Berhampore, Murshidabad-742101.

Hence this corrigendum is issued to modify the order accordingly.

Sd/- Sd/- (Sonjoy Sarma /संजय शमा�) (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य

Dated: 21st April, 2023 SB, Sr. PS

3 & 174/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 Murshidabad Gramin Bank (Presently merged with Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank) Sagar Gramin Bank (Presently merged with Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank)

Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Appellant- (i) Murshidabad Gramin Bank (Presently merged with Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank), NH-34, BMC House, P.O.- Chuanpur, Berhampore, Murshidabad-742101. (ii) Sagar Gramin Bank (Presently merged with Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank), NH-34, BMC House, P.O.- Chuanpur, Berhampore, Murshidabad-742101.

2.

Respondent – ACIT, Circle-42, Murshidabad 3. Ld. CIT(A)-12, Kolkata (Sent through e-mail) 4. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →