ACIT NON CORPORATE RANGE 13, CHENNAI vs. KELLEN CONSTRUCTION, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission and rectified the previous order. The Revenue's appeal was clarified to be allowed only for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee pointed out an error in a previous ITAT order. The order incorrectly stated that the Revenue's appeal was allowed, when it was only allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the issues?
Correction of a factual error in a previous ITAT order regarding the outcome of a Revenue appeal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee has intimated us vide letter dated 15.07.2019, that in Para 5 of the ITAT order dated 27.06.2019 in Revenue is allowed”, when the appeal was of the Revenue was allowed only for statistical purpose and therefore it is required to be rectified by passing a corrigendum.
On perusing the order of the ITAT dated 27.06.2019, we find the submission of the assessee is correct. Therefore Para No.5 in the order of the ITAT dated 27.06.2018 in Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.”
Accordingly the mistake in the order of the Tribunal is hereby rectified.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- 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
