SUNIL KUMAR ,HISAR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT IT DEPARTMENT, HISAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4351/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 February 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)2 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeals filed by the assessee on merit, acknowledging the typographical error in the lower authority's order. Consequently, both appeals of the assessee were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) concerning assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The core issue stemmed from a typographical error in the ACIT's order, where the date was incorrectly mentioned as 17.03.2024 instead of 17.03.2025.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was a typographical error in the date of the ACIT's order, which prevented a decision on the merits of the case by the appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1)/201(1A),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CA
For Respondent: Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr.DR
Hearing: 26.11.2025Pronounced: 27.11.2025

ORDER

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

1.

The captioned appeals are filed by assessee against the orders, both dated 10.06.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)/ADDL/JCIT(A), Mysore [“Ld.CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of orders, both dated 17.03.2024 passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively.

2.

As both captioned appeals filed by the assessee have similar issues which are inter-linked, inter-connected and this fact has been admitted by both the parties during the course of hearing before us, therefore, both appeals filed by the assessee are decided by a common order.

3.

Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. From the record, it is found that a typographical error crept in the order dated 17.03.2024 passed by ACIT, TDS Circle, Gurgaon wherein date of order was mentioned as 17.03.2024 instead of 17.03.2025 which is evident from page 1 para 2 that show cause notice was issued on 03.03.2025 thus, there is no question of date of order be on 17.03.2024. It is therefore, directed that Ld.CIT(A) decided the appeals filed by the assessee on merit.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →