Green Park Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, Central Circle- 32, New Delhi

MA 65/DEL/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0873 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. 65/Del/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.290/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/s. Green Park Estate Pvt. Ltd., M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi PAN :AAACG4040P (Applicant) (Respondent) ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM: By way of this Misc. Application, the applicant/assessee seeks rectification of mistake apparent from record in the order dated 21.10.2021 of this Tribunal in ITA No. 290/Del/2018 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. In the misc. application, the applicant/assessee pointed out that the Para 5 and 6 of the order dated 21.10.2021 in ITA No. 290/Del./2018, the Tribunal has held as under :- Applicant by Sh. Pradeep Kaushik, Advocate Respondent by Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.DR Date of hearing 12.07.2024 Date of pronouncement 22.07.2024 2 MA No.65/Del/2022 “5. Hence, as the quantum addition has already been deleted the appeal does not survive. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assesee submitted that the Tribunal has held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) does not survive after deletion of quantum addition. However, the outcome of Para 5 and 6 of the order dated 21.10.2021 in ITA No. 290/Del/2018 is contrary to the finding that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive. Hence, he prayed for rectification of the typographical mistake. 4. Further, in the misc. application, it is pointed out that the Hon’ble Bench has inadvertently written as appeal of assessee is dismissed instead of giving the finding that the appeal of assessee is allowed. 5. Upon hearing both the sides and carefully perusing the records, we find that the mistakes as pointed out are typographical errors. Hence, the typographical errors, as pointed out, are ordered to be rectified in order dated 21.10.2021 in ITA No. 290/Del./2018 and may be read as under : ‘1. In line no. 3 of para 5 of the order dated 21.10.2021 the word ‘dismissed’ may be read as ‘allowed’. 2. In para 6 of the order dated 21.10.2021 the word ‘dismissed’ may be read as ‘allowed’. 3 MA No.65/Del/2022 6. The afore-stated order of ITAT dated 21.10.2021 in ITA No. 290/Del./2018 is rectified to the above extent and accordingly, the misc. application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22 nd July, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 22 nd July, 2024. Binita, Sr.PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(ITAT), New Delhi Asstt. Registrar ITAT, New Delhi