Shri Anil Tantia, SRIGANGANAGAR V. ITO, SRIGANGANAGAR

MA 81/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0890 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R KOKANI
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH OJHA SHRI ASHOK KHATRI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NOS. 79 TO 81/JU/2013 A/0ITA NOS. 176, 177 & 178/JODH/2012 (A.YS. 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) SHRI ANIL KUMAR TANTIA VS. ITO, WARD - 2 23-B, SADAR BAZAR SRIGANGANAGAR SRIGANGANAGAR PAN NO. : AAUPT 3394 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SURESH OJHA SHRI ASHOK KHATRI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI G.R. KOKANI DATE OF HEARING : 15.07.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.08.2013 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. THROUGH THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS [MA], THE APPLICANT [ASSESSEE] HAS SOUGHT RECTIFICATION OF AL LEGED MISTAKES U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 2 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT', FOR SHORT] I N THE TRIBUNAL ORDER [TO] DATED 22.03.2013 PASSED IN THIS CASE IN ITA NOS. 176 TO 178/JU/2013 FOR A.YS. 2007-08 T O A.YS. 2009-10. 2. AN APPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT', FOR SHORT] H AS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY POINTING OUT CERTAIN MISTAKES WH ICH ARE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. 3. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENTS, POINTED OUT AND RELIED ON THE APPLICATION DATED 26. 6.2013 SUBMITTED BY HIM. THE MISTAKES POINTED OUT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2009-10 WHICH ARE COMMON, ARE DECI DED HEREUNDER. 4. THE FIRST MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE LD. A.R. IS THAT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AT PAGE NO. 9, IT HAS BEEN ME NTIONED THAT DR. SHYAM SUNDER TANTIA SURRENDERED TOTAL UNDISCLOSED I NCOME.. WHEREAS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHRI ANIL TANTIA SURREN DERED, IT WAS 3 ARGUED THAT THE SAME IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECOR D. THE D.R. ALSO AGREED WITH THE ARGUMENT AND RAISED NO OBJECTION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FIN D THAT THIS IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AND RECTIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 6. THE OTHER MISTAKES POINTED OUT, IS THAT IN THE T ITLE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FIRST PAGE OF THE ORDER, THE TITLE HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS ANIL TA NTIA VS. INCOME- TAX OFFICER WARD-2, SRIGANGANAGAR WHEREAS IT SHOUL D BE ANIL TANTIA VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER AS WELL AS IN TH E DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IT HAS BEEN TYPED AS ITO WARD-2 SRIGANGANAG AR VS. ANIL TANTIA, WHEREAS IT SHOULD BE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , BIKANER VS. ANIL TANTIA, THEREFORE, THIS BEING ALSO A MISTAKE APPAR ENT FROM RECORD. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER. ON PAGE 32 IN FIRST LINE, THE NAME HAS B EEN MENTIONED 'SMT. SARITA TANTIA WIFE OF SUNIL TANTIA....' WHERE AS THE NAME OF HUSBAND OF THE LADY IS ANIL TANTIA. IT IS THEREFO RE REQUESTED THAT THE NAME OF SUNIL TANTIA MAY KINDLY BE REPLACED BY ANIL TANTIA. 4 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOU ND THAT THESE ARE PURELY MISTAKES APPARENT ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE RECTIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE M.A. OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29 TH AUGUST, 2013. SD/- SD/- (N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATH A] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29 TH AUGUST, 2013. VL/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT BY ORDER 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR