Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited V. Union Of India Ministry Of Finance, (Department Of Revenue) and The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax and Commissioner On Income Tax-1 and Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 4(1)

MCC/748/2024

AI Insights

The case involved M/s Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited seeking a correction in a previous judgment concerning the assessment year 2006-2007. The original judgment mistakenly referred to the 'Financial Year 2006-2007' instead of the correct 'Assessment Year 2006-2007'. The applicant's counsel filed an MCC for rectification of this error. The court, upon reviewing the application and the records, agreed that the error was apparent and needed correction to reflect the accurate assessment year. The rectification was made to ensure the judgment accurately represented the intended assessment period, which is crucial for tax assessment and related legal proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 820845 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: TUSHAR DIWAN; AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: HARSHAL CHAUHAN
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Income Tax; Rectification; Financial year error
• Section: 147; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"1 / 2 2024:CGHC:34221-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 748 of 2024 M/s Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited (Earstwhile Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board) Incorporated Under The Companies Act 1956, Having Its Registered Office At Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Danganiya, P.S. And P.O. Danganiya, Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Manager (F And A) R/o Room No. 21, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Danganiya, District Raipur Chhattisgar ... Applicant versus 1 - Union Of India Ministry Of Finance, (Department Of Revenue) Through Secretary ,New Delhi. 2 - The Chief Commissioner Of Incom Tax Aykar Bhawan Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Commissioner On Income Tax-1, Aykar Bhawan Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 4(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ...Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Harshal Chauhan, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate for Union of India. For Respndent No. 2 to 4. : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Goutam Bhaduri and Hon'ble Shri Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ. Judgment on Board (04.09.2024) Per Goutam Bhaduri, Judge 1. Heard on M.C.C. for correction/rectification of the Judgment dated 25.07.2024 wherein para 2 & 3, the words \" Financial Year 2006-2007\" have wrongly been typed. 2. By way of this application, counsel for the applicant sought for 2 / 2 modification/rectification in the order dated 25.07.2024. 3. The aforesaid error in the said Judgment is apparent on the face of the record, and therefore, needs to be corrected/rectified. It is made clear that instead of words \"Financial Year 2006-2007\", the words \"Assessment Year 2006-2007\" be read in para 2 & 3. After correction/rectification, para 2 & 3 of the Judgment dated 25.05.2024 passed in WA No. 405 of 2024 be read as under: 2. At the outset, it has been submitted that since the issue pertains to assessment of Assessment Year 2006- 2007 and initially disallowance was made by the Revenue and in the year 2008 assessment order under Section 143 (3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed and assessed income was arrived at Rs. 8,40,75,70,697/-. Subsequently, it was subject of challenge before CIT (Appeals) and CIT (Appeals) disposed of the appeal under Section 143 (3) of the Act by holding that Order under Section 143 of the Act no longer exists and the original appeal was dismissed. 3. Before the issue has been deliberated upon the merits on various count, the proposal was mooted that since the issue pertains to the Assessment Year 2006- 2007, the CIT (Appeals) may adjudicate the issue after giving the opportunity of hearing to the parties and so that the issue be settled at rest, as it is perineal in nature. It is further submitted that at this stage, if the respondent agrees to the fact, the appeal may be adjudicated afresh by the CIT (Appeals) which was disposed of in the year 2009, the adjudication would take place on merits and they would not deliberate the issue here. 4. The error occurred in the said order stands corrected/rectified to the above extent. 5. With the aforesaid modification, the MCC stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE vaibhav "