Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 927 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - Assessments passed u/s.201(1) and 201(1A) in incorrect name of assessee - Name of the assessee has been mentioned inadvertently as - "M/s Vodafone South Limited (VSL - Hyd)" instead of mentioning the name of the assessee as – M/s.Vodafone Mobile Services Limited. - HELD THAT:- PCIT’s detailed discussion in issue before us has itself acknowledged that the Assessing Officer had passed the necessary corrigendum dt.22-01-2018 rectifying the name of the assessee-company from M/s.Vodafone South Ltd., (VSL-Hyd) to M/s.Vodafone Mobile Services Limited. There could hardly be any dispute that such corrigendum forming part of the PCIT’s discussion in para 2.2 dates back to the main orders as on 27-02-2017 only. This tribunal’s common order in assessee’s corresponding quantum appeals [2018 (5) TMI 2104 - ITAT HYDERABAD] has rejected the assessee’s corresponding pleas as well. Once learned PCIT’s revision directions in view of the issue, treat the alleged error committed by the Assessing Officer in incorporating the foregoing name to be only clerical and rectifiable in nature we fail to understand in this clinching factual backdrop as to how the impugned assessment/order(s) passed by the Assessing Officer could be erroneous ones, causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue; simultaneously as held in Malabar Industrial Co. Vs. CIT[2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] - PCIT has nowhere concluded that the Assessing Officer’s orders in issue attract assumption of Section 263 revision jurisdiction in the given facts after the assessing authority had issued corrigendum and the same involved only a clerical mistake; as the case may be (supra). We thus conclude that the PCIT herein has erred in law and facts in invoking his Section 263 revision jurisdiction - Decided in favour of assessee.
|