Court :
 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Brief :
  In the present application, the assessee has contended that in the aforesaid order, a typographical mistake has crept in inasmuch as in para 10 of our said order, we have wrongly extracted the portion of para 3 of the CIT (A)’s order, taking it to be the submissions of the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A); that the said extracted portion of the CIT (A)’s order is, in fact, not the submissions of the assessee before the CIT (A), but the operative portion of the CIT (A)’s order, whereas the submissions of the assessee before the CIT (A) are contained in para 2.7 at page 3 of the CIT (A)’s order. This para 2.7 of the CIT (A)’s order has  been reproduced in para 3 of the application. The ld. counsel for the assessee, before us, has reiterated the contents of the application
Citation :
  Shri Kaushal Sethi, DU-18, Pitampura, Delhi. (Applicant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25 (1),New Delhi. (Respondent)
 
			
				Browse CAclubindia ads free. 
Latest updates on WA.
 Daily E-Newsletter and much more.
CCI PRO annual subscription : 
			
          Duration : 1 year  
(Prices Inclusive of GST)
        
 
							
							
							
							  
			 
  
  
  LIVE Course on GSTR-9 & GSTR-9C (Technical | Practical | Concept - Based)
 
                                
                             
  
  