1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.152/LKW/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.628/LKW/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR:N. A. I.T.O. (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW VS. M/S JAN PRAGATI , 1/37, RAJNI KHAND, SHARDA NAGAR, LUCKNOW PAN:AABTJ5333L (A PPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D.R. RESPONDENT BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 12/02/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 4 /0 3 /201 6 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE REVENUE. I N THIS MISC. APPLICATION, IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE THAT WH ILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN MENTIONING EITHER THE DATE OF ORDER U/S 12AA OR THE DESIGNATION OF CIT. 3. IN COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, LEARNED DR OF TH E REVENUE REITERATED THE SAME CONTENTIONS WHICH ARE RAISED IN THE M.A. 4. WE FIND THAT THE DATE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ASSA ILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS 25.05.2014 AND NOT 28.05.2015 AS NOTED IN THE FIRST PARA OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. WE RECTIFY THE SAME AND TH E DATE IN THE FIRST PARA [2] OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER SHOULD BE READ AS 28 .05.2014. THE DESIGNATION OF THE CIT IS CORRECT. EXCEPT THIS MODI FICATION IN THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF CIT II, LUCKNOW, THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL O RDER REMAINS THE SAME. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODI A ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED:4 TH MARCH, 2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A ) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR