ITO, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM V. ALOK SRIPRAKASH SHUKLA, NEW ANJAR

MA 15/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue seeking to correct a typographical error in a previous Tribunal order concerning the assessee, Shri Alok Sriprakash Shukla, for the assessment year 2016-17. The error was identified in the context of the Tribunal's decision to remit certain issues back to the CIT(A) for re-assessment, which was mistakenly referred to as the 'Assessing Officer' in paragraph 5 of the order. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake and corrected the document to ensure consistency and accuracy in legal proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 836542 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL RANPURA
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट Ɋायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER िविवध आवेदन सं./MA No.15/RJT/2025 (Arising in ITA No.486/RJT/2024) िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2016-17 ITO, Ward – 1, Gandhidham बनाम/ Vs. Shri Alok Sriprakash Shukla Plot No.46, Gurukul Nagar-2, Nr. Bhagat Sing Road, New Anjar - 370 110 ˕ायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. PAN/GIR No. AIHPS 9037 N (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) .. (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, AR राजˢ की ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 13/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the Revenue has sought to point out that a mistake apparent from record within the meaning of Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) has crept in the order of the Tribunal dated 22.10.2024, in assessee’s appeals Nos.486 & 487/RJT/2024. 2. The case of the revenue in this Miscellaneous Application is that in Para No.4 of the Tribunal order, the Tribunal has remitted the issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A); however, in para no.5, the Tribunal has committed typographical error mentioning as if, the matter is remitted back to the file of Printed from counselvise.com MA No.15 /RJT/2025 Sh. Alok Shukla 2 assessing officer, however, in fact, the matter was remitted to the file of Ld. CIT(A), as per para no.4 of the Tribunal order. Therefore, para no.5 of the Tribunal order is to be rectified by inserting the word as, CIT(A) instead of Assessing Officer. 3. Para No.5 of the order of Tribunal in ITA Nos. 486 & 487/RJT/2024, dated 22.10.2024, is reproduced below: “5. Considering the facts that we have restored the grounds of appeal raised in quantum assessments to the file of Assessing Officer, therefore, the penalty imposed under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act will not survive when the matter in quantum proceedings have been restored to the file of Assessing Officer, the penalty do not have leg to stand. However, the Assessing Officer is given liberty to initiate fresh penalty in accordance with law. In the result, the penalty proceeding is also allowed for statistical purposes.” 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection if the correction is done in para no.5 of the Tribunal order, which is noted above. Therefore, we proceed to rectify the mistake apparent from record as follows. 5. The para no.5 of the Tribunal order dated 22.10.2024, should be read as follows: “5. Considering the facts that we have restored the grounds of appeal raised in quantum assessments to the file of CIT(A), therefore, the penalty imposed under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act will not survive when the matter in quantum proceedings have been restored to the file of CIT(A), the penalty do not have leg to stand. However, the CIT(A) is given liberty to initiate fresh penalty in accordance with law. In the result, the penalty proceeding is also allowed for statistical purposes.” 6. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal dated 22.10.2024, in ITA Nos. 486 & 487/RJT/2024, be treated as amended to this extent, as indicated above, except to this, there is no change in the original order of the Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.15 /RJT/2025 Sh. Alok Shukla 3 7. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the revenue is allowed, to the extent indicated above. Order is pronounced in the open court on 13/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI) Ɋाियक सद˟/Judicial Member लेखा सद˟/ Accountant Member राजकोट /Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 13/02/2026 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S True Copy आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant  ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent  आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT  आयकर आयुƅ(अपील)/ The CIT(A)  िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File By order/आदेश से, सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण , राजकोट Printed from counselvise.com "