ITO, WARD-50(1), KOLKATA vs. SENCO ALANKAR, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 10/KOL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 June 2022AY 2017-182 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal corrected the address of the assessee and the names of the representatives for the appellant and respondent as per the assessee's request.

What were the facts?

This is a corrigendum to a previous ITAT order. The assessee pointed out an incorrect address and the incorrect representation of the appellant and respondent's counsel.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correction of factual inaccuracies in the original ITAT order regarding the assessee's address and counsel representation.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

order passed by the Tribunal dated 27.06.2022 in M/s. Senco Alankar, Uttarapan Complex, DS-IV, 2nd floor, Manicktala Civic Centre, Sch. VIIM, Kolkata-700054. However, it has been brought to our notice by filing a request for corrigendum by the assessee that the correct address of the assessee is AE/344, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, P. S. Bidhan Nagar (North), Kolkata-700 064. Accordingly, by considering the application, the address of the assessee should be read as AE/344, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, P. S. Bidhan Nagar (North), Kolkata -700064. It has also been pointed out by the Ld. AR of the assessee that on the first page of the order, the name of Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate inadvertently appearing as the representative of the Appellant instead of Respondent. Accordingly, by considering the application, the name of Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT should be placed as appearance for Appellant and Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate should be placed as appearance for Respondent. (SANJAY GARG) (GIRISH AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 16.08.2022 JD, Sr. P.S.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →