Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax , Central Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

MA 41/BANG/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3697 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. No. 41/Bang/2022 (in ITA No. 380/Bang/2020) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ms. Sarita Dudheria, 66, Navniketan, K.R. Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004. PAN: AFWPD9619P Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(2), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. Girija, G.P. Advocates Revenue by : Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. CIT DR Date of Hearing : 01-07-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 01-07-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Ld.AR has filed the present miscellaneous petition seeking rectification of certain typographic mistake in common order passed by this Tribunal dated 15/03/2022. Referring to para 6.8 of the impugned order, the Ld.AR submitted that inadvertently section has not been correctly mentioned in the said para. He submitted that the assessment order in case of Shri Laxmipat Dudheria referred to in the said para is passed Page 2 of 3 M.P. No. 41/Bang/2022 (in ITA No. 380/Bang/2020) u/s. 144 r.w.s. 148 of the Act whereas this Tribunal has only mentioned section 144 of the Act. 2. We have considered the submissions of the assessee. 3. We note that section 148 also has to be mentioned in the said para which was missed out originally. Henceforth the limited portion of para 6.8 shall be read as under: “6.8................We note that in the decision by this Tribunal nothing is decided on merits but the entire decision was on the validity of reopening where there the assessment order was passed under section 144 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. We therefore are of the opinion that the decision is of no rescue to assessee.” 4. As has been mentioned in the miscellaneous petition, no other portion of the order has been sought for any rectification and the result remains to be the same. In the result, the M.P. filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 01 st July, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 01 st July, 2022. /MS / Page 3 of 3 M.P. No. 41/Bang/2022 (in ITA No. 380/Bang/2020) Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore