UGGARSAIN,GURUGRAM vs. ITO, WARD 4(4), GURGAON
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal issued this corrigendum to rectify the mistake. It directed that the correct PAN, ACWPU2316H, should be read and substituted for the wrongly mentioned PAN in the cause title of its earlier order dated 29.02.2024.
What were the facts?
The original Tribunal order dated 29.02.2024 contained a clerical error, incorrectly stating the assessee's PAN as AAWPU2316H in its cause title. The correct PAN for the assessee, Uggarsain, is ACWPU2316H.
What were the issues?
Correction of a clerical error regarding the assessee's Permanent Account Number (PAN) in the cause title of a previously issued Tribunal order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
order dated 29.02.2024, a mistake has crept in inasmuch as the PAN number of the assessee in the cause title of the order has been wrongly mentioned as AAWPU2316H whereas the correct PAN of the assessee should have been ACWPU2316H. Therefore, the correct PAN of the assessee in the cause title of the said Tribunal order dated 29.02.2024 in the above appeal may be read as ACWPU2316H. Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated, 11th July, 2024.
(ITA No.1994/Del/2023) Corrigendum
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
