9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch decision, it is prayed that in the absence of any contrary decision on this issue, the said judgment should be considered and the appeal filed by the assessee should be allowed by rectifying the order of the Tribunal dated 12-3-1992. The learned counsel for the applicant has been heard with reference to the miscellaneous application filed. In short, the miscellaneous application seeks to recall the order of the Tribunal dated 12-3-1992 and render decision in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the petitioner seeks for review of the order of the Tribunal. This is not permissible as per proviso to sub-rule (3) of rule 34A of the Tribunal. The learned departmental representative has been daily heard and he has strongly resisted oil the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal, Special Bench, Delhi in the case of Rishi Roop Chemical Co. (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1991] 36 ITD 35 considered the question whether the proviso to section 43B is prospective from 1-4-1988 or retrospective in operation from 1-4-1984. The Special Bench has duly noticed the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sanghi Motors v. Union of India [1991] 187 ITR 703 wherein their Lordships of the Delhi High Court considered the challenge of arbitrariness and ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution and also the contention that the amendment to section 43B by the Finance Act 1987 with effect from 1-4-1988 by inserting Proviso to section 43B was clarificatory in nature, but all these contentions were rejected by the Delhi High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m 1-4-1988. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the applicant to urge that there was no contrary decision of Court so as to apply the ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589. Inasmuch as there is a contrary judgment of the Delhi High Court on the same issue, the ruling in the case of Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf is not applicable. In any case, the Tribunal cleared through the controversy existing between the High Courts on this point and chosen to rest its decision based on consistent decisions of the Tribunal on this issue. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee made a valiant attempt by filing a copy of the order of the Tribunal, Pune Bench, in the case of FM v. United Engg. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
