N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 329/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 December 2022AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the typographical mistake in the previous order. It rectified the error by correcting the disputed addition amount from Rs. 66 crores to Rs. 85 crores as per the assessee's submission.

What were the facts?

The assessee pointed out a typographical error in a previous ITAT order regarding the disputed addition amount. The error was in mentioning Rs. 66 crores instead of the correct Rs. 85 crores in Ground No. 6 of the appeal.

What were the issues?

Correction of a factual error in a previous tribunal order regarding the quantum of disputed addition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C O R R I G E N D U M PER MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The learned Counsel for the assessee has filed an application dated 17.11.2022 pointing out a typographical error, apparent from the record, crept in on paragraph No.36 of page No.53 of the order dated 16.11.2022 passed by “B” Bench of the Tribunal in for AY 2012-13 in the case of N.K. Industries Ltd.

2.

It is pleaded in the application that a typographical error has been crept in on page No.53, in paragraph No.36, of the Tribunal order dated 16.11.2022 while mentioning the amount of disputed addition in the ground of appeal

, i.e. Ground No.6, wherein it has been wrongly typed as Rs.66 crores instead of Rs.85 crores. In support of the same, learned Counsel for the assessee has placed on record copy of Form No. 36 filed by the assessee in ITA No.1211/Ahd/2018 and submitted that the order may be modified rectifying the aforesaid mistake.

3. We find that there was indeed a typographical mistake crept in on page No.53, in paragraph No.36, of the order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.1211/Ahd/2018 for AY 2012-13 in the case of M/s. N.K. Industries Ltd. The mistake, which is apparent from the record, is required to be rectified; and, we accordingly rectify it as under:-

Corrigendum in NK Industreis Ltd Vs. DCIT AY : 2012-13 2 Ground No. 6 in Para 36 on page No.53 mentioned earlier in the order:- “36... ….. ….. 6. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.66 crore made by the Ld. Assessing Officer and the same is not warranted.”

The same should now be read as follows :- “36….. ….. ….. 6. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.85 crore made by the Ld. Assessing Officer and the same is not warranted.”

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →