What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal corrected a factual error in its previous order. The word 'unabated' was mistakenly used instead of 'abated' in relation to the assessment.

This is a corrigendum to a previous ITAT judgment concerning an assessment year 2009-10. The corrigendum addresses a typographical error in the original order.

What were the issues?

The core issue was a typographical error in the tribunal's previous order regarding the nature of the assessment (abated vs. unabated).

Gajendra D Pawar, Pune vs DCIT | ITAT Pune 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM :

The present corrigendum is being issued to correct the inadvertent typographical error in mentioning, “Thus, it is a case of unabated assessment” in Para 5 of ITA No.1209/PUN/2015 decided on 26-03-2018.

In Para 5, the word “abated” has been inadvertently mentioned as “unabated”. After necessary correction in Para 5 the corrected line be read as “Thus, it is a case of abated assessment”.

Sd/- Sd/- (डी. करुणाकरा राव/D. Karunakara Rao) (ववकास अवस्थी / Vikas Awasthy) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 28th March, 2018 RK

2 ITA No.1209/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2009-10

आदेश की प्रयिलऱवऩ अग्रेवषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त (अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-11, Pune 3. 4. The Pr. CIT (Central), Pune ववभागीय प्रयतयनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “बी” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाडड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रयत // True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

यनजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

GAJENDRA D PAWAR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments