ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. SRIDHAR PALAKURTHI, HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal corrected a typographical error where 'Assessing Officer' was mentioned instead of 'ld.CIT(A)'. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination and a detailed speaking order.
What were the facts?
This is a corrigendum to a previous order by the ITAT Hyderabad Bench concerning appeals for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20. A typographical error was identified in paragraph 13.2 of the original order.
What were the issues?
The core issue was a typographical error in the previous order, leading to a correction and remand for further examination by the lower appellate authority.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
The above captioned appeals were disposed of by the Tribunal by a common order dated 09.10.2023. It is noticed that in Paragraph 13.2 of the said order, the word “Assessing Officer” was wrongly mentioned instead of “ld.CIT(A)”, which is an inadvertent typographical mistake. Therefore, the same is hereby corrected.
Accordingly, the last line in the said paragraph (13.2) may be read as “In the light of the above, we deem it appropriate to remand back the matter to the file of ld.CIT(A) to examine afresh and pass a detailed speaking order.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
