SUNIL KUMAR MALOO.,SEONI vs. ITO,SEONI, SEONI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 78/JAB/2022Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 December 2022AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal is rectifying minor errors in its previous order to ensure accuracy and clarity. These corrections do not alter the substantive outcome of the appeal.

What were the facts?

This judgment is a corrigendum order to rectify omissions in a previously passed order. The corrections relate to specific wording and punctuation within various paragraphs of the original order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue is the correction of clerical and typographical errors in a previously issued ITAT order. The substantive legal issues of the original appeal are not being re-adjudicated here.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CORRIGENDUM Per Sanjay Arora, AM Order under section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) in the captioned appeal was passed on 20/12/2022. It is, however, found that there have occurred certain omissions in the said order, which are, therefore, hereby sought to be rectified through this corrigendum order. The same being only a correction of those errors, does not therefore per se cause any prejudice to either party. The details are as under:-

1.

Para 4.1 (pg.3) a) The alphabet „s‟ be read at the end of the word “assessee‟” in the first sentence of the para, and the word „and‟ between the words „law‟ and „in‟, be omitted. b) A comma ( , ) be inserted before the numerals „139(5)‟ and the word „the‟ be read before the words „relevant assessment year‟, in the second sentence of the para, beginning with the words, „The law, per….‟

(A.Y. 2011-12) Sunil Kumar Maloo v. ITO c) The word „may‟ be read instead of the word „to‟ after the words „for which reference‟ in the fourth sentence, beginning with the words, „The law in the matter….‟ d) The word „it‟ be read after the words „on account of‟ in the fifth sentence, beginning with the words „The assessee also missed….‟ e) The words „due to‟ be read in place of the words „in view of‟ in the sixth sentence, beginning with the words „Though the assessee claims…….‟

2.

Para 4.4: a) The words „refused to‟ after the word „ITO‟ in the first sentence of the para, be read as „refuses‟. b) The word „gain‟ be read as „again‟, and the word „which‟ be read before the words „could be rectified‟ in the second sentence of the para beginning with the words „In CIT v. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd…..‟

3.

Para 4.5 (pg.6): The word „of‟ after the words „of not returning‟ in the sentence beginning with the words „That apart, it is always……‟, be omitted.

4.

Para 4.6: a) The words „he‟ and „his‟ be read instead of the words „it‟ and „its‟ in the second sentence of the para beginning with the words: „The reason is that…‟. b) The words „mistakenly additional income (Rs. 14.05 lacs)‟ in the sentence beginning with the words, „It is on this basis……‟, be read as „income of Rs. 14.05 lacs‟. The word „additional‟ preceding the word „tax‟ and „income‟ in the said sentence be omitted. c) A comma (,) after the word „regard‟ in the sentence beginning with the words: the “The assessee in this……..‟, be omitted. And the word „that‟ preceding the words „current year‟ in the said sentence, be read as „the‟.

5.

Para 4.7 a) The words „, i.e.,‟ be read instead of the word „and‟ after the words „on merits‟ in the first sentence of the para, and the words „, not observed‟ be read at the end of the said sentence. b) The words, „i.e., u/s. 139(9)‟ be read at the end of the second sentence, beginning with the words: „Needless to add,……..‟ c) The word „has‟ after the word „Revenue‟ in the last sentence of the para, beginning with the words „Both the mistakes……..‟, be omitted. 2 | P a g e

(A.Y. 2011-12) Sunil Kumar Maloo v. ITO

6.

Para 4.8 a) The word „provision‟ in the sentence beginning with the word „The only thing required…….‟ be read as „provision/s‟ b) The words „would not be‟ in the sentence beginning with the words „The decisions in L-Cube Innovative Solutions P. Ltd….‟ be read as „may not be of‟ c) A comma (,) be read after the numerals „139(9)‟ and the word „clarified‟ in the sentence beginning with the words: „The scope of………..‟, and the word „u/s. 139(5)‟ be read as „s. 139(5)‟ d) The words „seeks the correct on discovery of‟ in the sentence beginning with the words „While the latter….‟ be read as „seeks to correct on discovery‟ e) The word „though‟ after the words „We have‟ in the sentence beginning with the said words, be omitted. f) The words „said provisions‟ in the following sentence be read as „provision‟, and the word „an‟ be read before the words „apparent inconsistency‟, in the following sentence. g) A comma (,) be read after the words „various reasons‟ in the sentence beginning with the words „A mistake, it may…………‟, and the following words be read at the end of the sentence: „, with an internal inconsistency, as explained by way of an example (in para 4.7), also observed by the Tribunal in Hasumatiben D. Mistry (supra), validating it‟. h) A comma (,) be read after the word „so‟ in the following sentence beginning with the words “That it could be ….‟, and the words „ratios in decisions‟ be read as „ratios of the decision‟ in the said sentence.

7.

Para 4.9 (pg.10): The last sentence of the para be read as „The instant proceedings are, accordingly, valid‟, instead of „The proceedings, accordingly, are valid‟. 8. Para 4.10: Sub-para 4.10 be inserted after para 4.9, reading as under: „4.10 We decide accordingly.‟

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →