9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- 11-2-2013 - AKIL KURESHI AND SONIA GOKANI , JJ. For the Appellant : Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt. ORDER:- PER : Akil Kureshi Petitioner-revenue has challenged an order dated 23.07.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) in MA No. 89 of 2012. The respondent-assessee had preferred appeal before the Tribunal against the decision of CIT(Appeals) which was partially against the assessee. In such appeal, the contention of the revenue was that it was not open for the Tribunal to examine validity of the search proceedings in view of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Neesa Leisure Ltd. and anr Vs.Union of India Through Secretary and ors. Reported in [2011] 338 ITR 460. On the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eded to the request of the Ld. AR had passed the order on merits by placing reliance in the order of the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of Neesa Leisure Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 338 ITR 460. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the assessee was prevented from arguing the case on merits at the time of hearing on the earlier occasions before us. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby recall the order of the Tribunal dated 30th March, 2012 for hearing the case afresh. The Registry is directed to post the cases in due course and intimate both the parties. (In IT (S) A.No. 63 and 52/Ahd/2005 (BP-1-4-1995 to 26-2-2002) Rajendra M. Vyas v. DCIT, CC 12, Ahmedabad Manubhai P. Vyas (Dec.) L/h Rajendra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very old matter being more than one year old. Every day we were arguing 15 to 20 appeals and therefore, being one year old, I do not have any memory with respect to the query made by Shri Manish Bhatt, Advocate as to whether the arguments were advanced on merits or not." 7. From the record therefore, it clearly emerges that the impression carried by the assessee as confirmed by the Tribunal, is not rebutted from any further evidence on record. We would, therefore, proceed to accept the Tribunal's recollection of what transpired during the oral hearing before it true and accurate. 8. In the result, we do not find any merits in the petition in which the principal stand of the department is that the Tribunal could not have recalled its or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
