9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e averments made in the present application, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal contesting the action of the CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal in terms of S.249(4) on the ground of short-payment of tax on admitted income. During the appeal hearing before the Tribunal, it was submitted, the learned counsel pleaded that an amount of Rs.93 lakhs was approximately due by way of interest and no tax due was there and also requested to grant time to make statement of amounts paid towards tax. In fact, it is pointed, by this time, the directory requirement of tax payment was complied with and as such the irregularity of the provisions of S.249(4) was cured and validate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further submitted that the assessee subsequently paid a further sum of Rs.1,00,00,000 more, by which the admitted tax and interest thereon as per order under S.143(1) was totally met and a sum of Rs.9,52,628 remains in excess than what is due towards payment of admitted tax on the income returned. 5. In view of the above, learned counsel for the assessee prayed for recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 10.10.2012, and restoration of the appeal, ITA No.363/Hyd/2012, for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 6. The Learned Departmental Representative, on the contrary, opposing the above contentions of the assessee, strongly supporting the order of the Tribunal dated 10.10.2012 submitted that there is no mistake apparent from record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent application, we find that the assessee is merely seeking a review of the order of the Tribunal, which is not possible in these proceedings under S.254(2) of the Act. 8. Before parting, it is pertinent to note, as already stated in the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee, the assessee has preferred similar application earlier, seeking rectification/recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 10.10.2012, and the same has been rejected by the Tribunal, after detailed consideration of various contentions of the assessee, vide its order dated 31.1.2013 in MA No.1/Hyd/2013. The earlier application of the assessee under S.254(2), having been rejected already, it is not permissible to move once again application under S.254(2) for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
