Commissioner of Income Tax vs Ayodhya Kumari

Kishan Mal Lodha, J.—This case comes up for orders on the application which was filed by the learned counsel for the assessee on February 4, 1985.

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.

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