Smt. Sarita Nainwani, Lucknow V. Income Tax Officer-II, Faizabad

MA 1/LKW/2023

AI Insights

This case involves a Miscellaneous Application by Smt. Sarita Nainwani, the proprietor of M/s Bhola Pharma, addressing typographical errors in a previous Tribunal order concerning the Assessment Year 2011-12. The errors pertained to the incorrect ITA number and the incorrect citation of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) office. The Tribunal acknowledged these mistakes as typographical errors and corrected them accordingly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123018 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.01/Lkw/2023 [Arising out of ITA No.458/Lkw/2020] (Assessment Year 2011-12) Smt. Sarita Nainwani, Prop. M/s Bhola Pharma, 3/2/18, Mukeri Tola, Faizabad PAN: AHTPN 1830B Vs. The Income Tax Officer-II Faizabad (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This Misc. Application arising out of I.T.A. No.458/Lkw/2020 has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal dated 17/08/2022 in respect of assessee, namely, Smt. Sarita Nainwani for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assessee, vide this Misc. Application, has submitted that while passing the order in above captioned appeal, the I.T.A. Number has been mentioned as 458/Lkw/2021 whereas it should have been Appellant by Shri P.K. Kapoor, CA Respondent by Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing 06/10/2023 Date of pronouncement 13/10/2023 M.A. No.01/Lkw/2023 2 458/Lkw/2020. It has also been submitted that in line number 2 of first paragraph of the order, CIT(A), Bareilly has been mentioned whereas it should have been CIT(A), Lucknow. The assessee has requested to correct both the mistakes. 3. We have gone through the records and the order of the Tribunal and it is seen that due to typographical error, the above mentioned mistakes have occurred in the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, it is ordered that the ITA number may be read as 458/Lkw/2020 and in line No.2 of the first paragraph of the said order, CIT(A) Bareilly, be read as CIT(A), Lucknow. 4. In the result, Miscellaneous Application of the assessee stands allowed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 13/10/2023) Sd/- Sd/- ( ANADEE NATH MISSHRA ) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 13/10/2023 Aks Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar