w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

M/s. Salarpur Cold Storage (P) v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

    M.A. No. 27/LKW of 2018, ITA No. 84/LKW of 2013
    Decided On, 10 August 2018
    At, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Lucknow
    For the Applicant: S.C. Agarwal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Neelam Agrawal, D.R.

Judgment Text
Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, J.M:

1. This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal dated 8/12/2017 in ITA No.84/LKW/2013 with regard to three mistakes as submitted by the assessee in the Miscellaneous Application.

2. Mistake No.1 pointed out by the assessee is that in the cause title the appeal numbers have been mentioned as "Arising out of ITA No.84 & 606/DEL/2013" whereas the same should be "LKO" instead of "DEL". This is a typing error and we would like to rectify the mistake by modifying the cause title to read as "Arising out of ITA No.84 & 606/LKW/2013" in place of "Arising out of ITA No.84 & 606/DEL/2013".

3. Mistake No.2 pointed out by the assessee is that the appeals in ITA No.84 & 606/LKW/2013 are preferred by the Revenue, but in the opening line wrongly it is written that these appeals are preferred by the assessee. This is also a typographical error which needs to be rectified.

M.A. No.27/LKW/2018 We accordingly rectify the mistake by substituting the word "Revenue" in place of "assessee" in the opening line of the order.

4. Regarding third mistake as appearing in the Miscellaneous Application, ld. A.R. of the assessee invited our attention to an affidavit filed before the Tribunal which are appearing at pages 1 to 4 of the paper book and took us to page 8 para 4 of the order of the Tribunal and submitted that the affidavit has been wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal and, therefore, the cross objection of the assessee was dismissed.

5. We have perused the case records, heard the rival contentions and we find that the Tribunal has taken a particular view with regard to the affidavit filed in the paper book and based on which it had come to a conclusion and given its finding by passing a speaking order. There is no mistake apparent from record in this regard and, therefore, this ground of Miscellaneous Application is rejected.

6. We, therefore, allow the mistakes to be rectified with regard to typing errors as discussed hereinabove in mistake No.1 & 2 while for the third mistake as appearing in the Miscellaneous Application pertaining to the view taken by t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
he Tribunal based on the affidavit filed by the assessee, there is no mistake apparent on record and hence this ground is dismissed. 7. In the result, Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above.