Sunil Kumar Maloo., Seoni V. ITO,Seoni, Seoni

ITA 78/JAB/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5326 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-09-2022
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 | P a g e IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, HON‟BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 78/JAB/2022 (Asst. Year : 2011-12) 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....‟ Sunil Kumar Maloo, Ishwar Complex, Barapathar, Seoni (MP) [PAN : ADRPM 5712 F] vs. ITO, Seoni. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 78/JAB/2022 (A.Y. 2011-12) Sunil Kumar Maloo v. ITO 2 | P a g e 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. ITA No. 78/JAB/2022 (A.Y. 2011-12) Sunil Kumar Maloo v. ITO 3 | P a g e 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.‟ Sd/- Sd/- (Manomohan Das) (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 21/12/2022 vr/- ITA No. 78/JAB/2022 (A.Y. 2011-12) Sunil Kumar Maloo v. ITO 4 | P a g e Copy to: 1. The Appellant: Sunil Maloo, Ishwar Complex, Barapathar, Seoni. 2. The Respondent: ITO, S eoni (MP) 3. CIT( A)-NF AC, De lhi 4. The Sr . DR, I TAT, Jabalpur. 5. Guard File. By order (VUKKEM RAMBABU) Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Jabalpur.