9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Neesa Leisure Ltd. v. Union of India Through Secretary [2011 (3) TMI 706 - Gujarat High Court] – Decided against the Revenue. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1158 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 12-2-2013 - AKIL KURESHI AND SONIA GOKANI , JJ. For the Appellant : Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt. ORDER:- PER : Ms. Sonia Gokani This petition is preferred challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) dated 23.7.2012 challenging the validity of the order of the Tribunal in MA No.88/Ahd/2012, whereby the Tribunal exercised the powers under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act ("the Act" for short). 2. The respondent assessee preferred appeal before CIT(Appeals), which was partly allowed on 25.1.2006, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee respondent. The stand taken by the assessee respondent is that the only question that was required to be examined by the Tribunal was in respect of its jurisdiction to consider the assessee's challenge to the validity of the search itself. The Tribunal was not to adjudicate the case on merits. 5. The Tribunal, after noting rival contentions of the parties, concluded in MA No.88/2012 that the assessee, since was prevented from arguing the matter on merits, at the time of hearing, it was essential for the Tribunal to recall its own order dated 30.3.2012 and place the matter for hearing afresh. This has perturbed the Revenue, and therefore, present petition has been preferred. 6. Identical question arose in Special Civil Applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was any material to enquire further, particularly, when we find that the Tribunal was a best judge to record what had transpired during oral hearing before the said forum, the above question became more relevant. 6. Learned counsel Mr. Bhatt for the revenue placed on record a communication dated 08.02.2012 from one Mr. S.K. Gupta, who had appeared before the Tribunal on behalf of the revenue during the said proceedings before the Tribunal, in his letter to the Commissioner of Income Tax, he has stated as under: "2.2 However, with respect to the arguments and merits, I do not recall whether such arguments were made or not because it is a very old matter being more than one year old. Every day we were arguing 15 to 20 appeals an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
