Case LawHigh Court › Iapl/331/2016 Of M/S Arvind Prakashan Pv...

Iapl/331/2016 Of M/S Arvind Prakashan Pvt. Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Meerut

High Court 16 Oct 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisdb_16012018
Parties
Iapl/331/2016 Of M/S Arvind Prakashan Pvt. Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Meerut
Date of order
16 Oct 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Iapl/331/2016 Of M/S Arvind Prakashan Pvt. Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Meerut, the High Court (2019) decided the matter.

Decision: In view of the above, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the Tribunal to consider the documents filed along with theletter dated 19.11.2010 and pass fresh orders on therectification application within a period of three months fromtoday by giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

Court No. - 35Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 331 of 2016Appellant :- M/S Arvind Prakashan Pvt. Ltd.Respondent :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax MeerutCounsel for Appellant :- Kartikeya SaranCounsel for Respondent :- Cscit,Manu Ghildiyal Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. Heard Sri R.R. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned Counsel for the appellant-assessee and Sri Manu Ghildyal, learned Counsel for therespondent-department. The original record of the case is before us. Learned Counselfor the assessee has been contending that in response to thequeries made by the A.O. they had filed additional documentsby way of letter dated 19.11.2010, which is very much thereon the record of the case. Therefore, this contention of theassessee that he had filed additional documents along with theletter dated 19.11.2010 is correct. The order sheet is also on record. The record has been shown to both parties as well as to the Court. The order sheet doesnot reflect that any orders were passed on the documentsenclosed along with the letter dated 19.11.2010. The assessee had applied for rectification on the basis of letter dated 19.11.2010 and from a perusal of the record it is clearthat the same has not been considered. Therefore, thecontention of the assessee is correct that material evidenceprovided by him was not considered and this amounted to amistake apparent from the face of the record. In view of the above, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the Tribunal to consider the documents filed along with theletter dated 19.11.2010 and pass fresh orders on therectification application within a period of three months fromtoday by giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Theorder dated 16.02.2016 passed by the ITAT is set aside. A copy of this order be given to Sri Manu Ghildyal, learnedCounsel for the respondent-department within 24 hours fornecessary communication and compliance. Order Date :- 16.10.2019S.P.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan