SANTOSH GOEL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-42(2), NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal clarified that the correct date of hearing and pronouncement for the appeal was 05/08/2021, not 04/08/2021 as mistakenly recorded. The substantive decision of the appeal remains unchanged.
What were the facts?
This is a corrigendum to a previous ITAT order. The original order was disposed of on 05/08/2021. The corrigendum corrects a typographical error regarding the date of hearing and pronouncement.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was a clerical error in recording the date of hearing and pronouncement in a previously issued ITAT order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
of the assessee vide order dated 05/08/2021. However, I note that inadvertently typographical error has crept in the aforesaid order, wherein, the date of hearing and date of pronouncement was written as ‘04/08/2021’. However, the date of hearing and date of pronouncement is 05/08/2021.
Therefore, the correct date of hearing and date of pronouncement may be read as 05/08/2021.
The other contents of the aforesaid order dated 05/08/2021 shall remain unchanged.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
