SHRI SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR AGRAWAL, DURG,DURG(CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BHILAI, BHILAI(CG)

PDF · subscribers
ITA 158/BIL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 January 2023AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the corrigendum application was not maintainable as it was filed by the counsel and not the assessee. The assessee was given liberty to file it again as per the prescribed procedure.

What were the facts?

The assessee's counsel filed a corrigendum application to rectify clerical mistakes in a previous order. The Tribunal noted that such applications, like the original appeal, must be signed by the assessee himself unless impossible.

What were the issues?

Whether a corrigendum application to an ITAT order needs to be signed by the assessee, similar to the original appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 140

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

The present corrigendum application seeking rectification of certain clerical mistakes in the order passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal in for A.Y 2012-13, dated 17.10.2022 has been filed before us on 20.10.2022. On a perusal of the aforesaid 2 Shri Sudhir Kumar Agrawal, Durg Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhilai application, we find that the same had been filed not by the assessee appellant but by his counsel. As an appeal in Form No.36 r.w. Rule 47(1) r.w. Rule 45(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 read a/w. Section 140 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) is required to be signed by the individual appellant (except for where it is not possible for the individual to so verify), therefore, the corrigendum application is also to be similarly filed by the assessee appellant.

More judgments on Section 140

All 100 judgments and leading authorities on Section 140 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →