GREAT BARTER PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 24/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 October 2023AY 2014-20152 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, after perusing the records, found that typographical errors had indeed crept into its order dated 19/06/2023. It was held that the factual position recorded in paragraph 8, stating that the issue related to an addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of loans received from three parties, was correct. Consequently, the Tribunal rectified the errors in paragraph 15, directing that the words "alleged share capital and share premium" should be read as "alleged loan" and "share subscribers" should be read as "loan creditors". Similarly, in paragraph 18, the words "share applicants" were directed to be read as "loan creditors". The operative direction was to correct these specific phrases in the aforementioned paragraphs of the original order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Great Barter Pvt. Ltd., filed appeals for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(1), Kolkata. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata Bench, had previously issued an order on 19/06/2023. The director of the assessee company subsequently filed a petition seeking a correction of typographical errors in the Tribunal's order. The petition highlighted specific inaccuracies in paragraphs 8, 15, and 18 of the original order, which pertained to the nature of additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal's original order correctly reflected the factual position regarding additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically concerning the nature of the receipts as loans from three parties. Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the original order contained typographical errors. Specifically, it argued that references to "alleged share capital and share premium" and "share subscribers/applicants" in paragraphs 15 and 18 should have been "alleged loan" and "loan creditors" respectively, as the addition was on account of loans received. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding these typographical errors. The correction was made based on the assessee's petition and the Tribunal's perusal of the records.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The director of the assessee company has filed a petition stating that in the order of the Tribunal dt. 19/06/2023, certain typographical errors have crept in, which read as under:- “(a) In para 8 of the order of the Learned Tribunal, it is recorded that the issue in the said appeal relates to addition made u/s 68 of the IT Act 1961 on account of loan received from 3 parties. This is the correct factual position. (b) In para 15 of the order of the Learned Tribunal, in line number Four, the words "alleged share capital and share premium" appears, this should have read as "alleged loan". (c) Similarly, in para 15 of the order of the Learned Tribunal, in line number Eleven, the words "share subscribers" appears, this should have read as "loan creditors". (d) Similarly, in para 18 of the order of the Learned Tribunal, in line number Five, the words "share applicants" appears, this should have read as "loan creditors".

2.

After perusing the records, we rectify the typographical errors in the following manner:- (a) In para 15 of the order, line number Four, the words "alleged share capital and share premium" shall henceforth be read as "alleged loan".

I.T.(SS)A. No. 23 & 24/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Great Barter Pvt. Ltd. 2 (b) In para 15 of the order, line number Eleven, the words "share subscribers" shall henceforth be read as "loan creditors". (d) In para 18 of the order, line number Five, the words "share applicants" appears, shall henceforth be read as "loan creditors".

3.

Ordered accordingly. Order pronounced in the Court on 18th October, 2023 at Kolkata. (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated 18/10/2023 *SC SrPs आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

2.

""यथ" / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, 6. गाड" फाई/ Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →