M/S SREE LAKSHMI VENTAKATESHWARA MINERALS,HOSPET vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1816/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 November 2021AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal corrected the PAN of the assessee from ABHFS 8469H to ABMFS 5851N. It also clarified that the search referenced in the assessment order was conducted in the case of Sri Dadapeer, not K. Mahesh Kumar.

What were the facts?

This judgment is a corrigendum to a previous ITAT order concerning appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11. The corrigendum corrects the PAN of the assessee, Sree Lakshmi Venkateshwara Transport, and clarifies details regarding a search conducted in the case of Sri Dadapeer instead of K. Mahesh Kumar.

What were the issues?

The primary issues addressed were the incorrect PAN of the assessee and the misidentification of the individual in whose case a search under Section 132 was initiated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C O R R I G E N D U M Per N V Vasudevan, Vice President In the order of the Tribunal dated 30.09.2020 in these appeals, in the cause title of 1813 & 1815/Bang/2017 for the AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 and ITA No.1791/Bang/2017 for the AY 2010-11 relating to the appeals of Sree Lakshmi Venkateshwara Transport, the PAN is inadvertently mentioned as ABHFS 8469H. The correct PAN is substituted to read as PAN: ABMFS 5851N.

Further, in para 34 the 2nd & 3rd line reads as “order of the AO 2. makes a reference to the search in the case of K. Mahesh Kumar on 25.10.2020.” The words in the 2nd & 3rd line of para 34 is substituted to read as under:-

“order of the AO makes a reference to the search in the case of Sri Dadapeer on 25.10.2020.”.

3.

Similarly, in the satisfaction note recorded by the AO reproduced in para 34, the PAN is substituted to read as “P.A.N : ABMFS5851N” in place of ‘P.A.N. : ABHF58469H’. Also, the first para therein mentioning

Corrig. to to 1818 & 1789 to 1791/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 3 search u/s. 132 in the case of Sri K. Mahesh Kumar is substituted to read as follows:-

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →