Skip to content


Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ayodhya Kumari - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect taxation
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 30 of 1985 and D.B. Income Tax Ref. No. 29 of 1971
Judge
Reported in1985(2)WLN167
AppellantCommissioner of Income Tax
RespondentAyodhya Kumari
Excerpt:
.....pen-ultimate para judgment--correction of--in place of words 'against the assessee' the words 'in favour of the assessee and against the revenue' be read ;order accordingly - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile..........para of the judgment. the error is rectified. in the third line of the para above the pen-ultimate para in place the words 'against the assessee', the words 'and in favour of the assessee and against the revenue respectively' shall be added. after correction, the para above the pen-ultimate para of the judgment, will read as under:we, therefore, answer questions no. 1 and 4 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and in favour of the assessee and against the revenue respectively. questions no. 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.it is not necessary to answer question no. 5.3. let the aforesaid correction be made in the judgment and the tribunal be informed accordingly.
Judgment:

Kishan Mal Lodha, J.

1. This case comes up for orders on the application which was filed by the learned counsel for the assessee on February 4, 1985.

2. We have perused the judgment dated February 3, 1984 and also the findings recorded on questions No. 1 and 4. In view of the findings recorded, there appears to be some error in the para above the pen-ultimate para of the judgment. The error is rectified. In the third line of the para above the pen-ultimate para in place the words 'against the assessee', the words 'and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue respectively' shall be added. After correction, the para above the pen-ultimate para of the judgment, will read as under:

We, therefore, answer questions No. 1 and 4 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue respectively. Questions No. 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

It is not necessary to answer question No. 5.

3. Let the aforesaid correction be made in the judgment and the Tribunal be informed accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //