NYANYA GOLLO,ITANAGAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

MA 33/GTY/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Nyanya Gollo, the assessee, who filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of an earlier Tribunal order concerning the assessment year 2016-17. The original order mistakenly dismissed the appeal regarding the confirmation of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Both the assessee's counsel and the Departmental Representative acknowledged the error as a factual mistake. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the submissions and the record, agreed that a typographical error had occurred and rectified the order to allow the appeal instead of dismissing it.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779140 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAUSIK RAY
• Assessee Lawyers: S.P. BHATI
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI (Through Virtual hearing at Kolkata) BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JM MA No.33/GTY/2023 (Arising in ITA No. 167/GTY/2020 for A.Y. 2016-17) Nyanya Gollo C-Sector, Itanagar, Papumpare, Arunachal Pradesh-791111 (PAN: AMSPG7155Q) Vs Income Tax officer, Ward-1, Tezpur अपीलार्थी/ (Applicant) प्रत्‍ यर्थी/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.P. Bhati, AR Revenue by : Shri Kausik Ray, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.09.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: By virtue of this Miscealleneous Application, the assessee seeks rectification of the order passed in ITA No. 167/GAY/2020 dated 6.10.2023 for A.Y. 2016-17, order dated 06.10.2023. 02. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted in Para no.8 of the order, the Hon'ble Bench has stated that the issue in ITA No. 167/GAU/2020 is as regards to confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which is consequential in nature and is dismissed, whereas as a matter of fact this has wrongly been mentioned to be dismissed instead of allowing the appeal. Accordingly, the order may be rectified. And also, in Para no.9 it is mentioned in the order that ITA No. 167/GAU/2020 to be dismissed instead of allowed. The ld. DR on the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 MA no. 33/GAU/2023 Nyanya Gollo; A.Y. 2016-17 other hands, fairly agreed to the argument of the ld. AR that this is a factual mistake committed in the said order. 03. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that while deciding the issue, the appeal of the assessee has wrongly been dismissed instead of allowing the appeal, which is a typo mistake while passing the order and accordingly, para no.8 &9 of the order are substituted with the following paras: - “8. The issue in ITA No. 167/GAU/2020 is as regards to confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which consequential in nature and is allowed. 9. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.” Order of the Tribunal dated 06.10.2023 is modified to this extent only. 04. In the result, the Miscealleneous Application of the assessee is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOMOHAN DAS) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 16.10.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Printed from counselvise.com "