9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent on the face of the record enabling us to exercise our writ jurisdiction – Decided against Revenue. - Writ Petition No. 5655 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2014 - S C Dharmadhikari And B P Colabawalla, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Vimal Gupta, Senior Adv a/w Mr. Vipul Arun Bajpayee For the Respondent : Mr. S E Dastur, Senior Adv a/w Mr.R.Murlidharan, Mr.Arun Sivach and Mr. Jay Sanklecha JUDGEMENT:- 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 06.12.2013 in Miscellaneous Application No.119/PN/2010. By a detailed order, copy of which is at Annexure-E to the petition, this Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue has been dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain figures, but which figures do not match with the statement furnished by the Assessee. Apart therefrom the finding rendered by the Tribunal that the Department's representative did not make any particular statement to support the figure of ₹ 5,76,75,624/- in place of ₹ 4,11,61,718/-, was vitiated by an apparent mistake and which did not require any elaborate reasoning leave alone consideration of detailed arguments. In these circumstances rejection of the Miscellaneous Application by the Tribunal and that too by a cryptic reasoning would enable the Revenue to question the same in writ jurisdiction. All parameters, enabling this Court to interfere in its Writ jurisdiction are satisfied. Mr.Gupta submits that the Writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditures claimed and verified . The Department's Appeal to the Tribunal was dismissed on the ground that the Department's representative did not make any particular submission to support the figure of ₹ 5,76,75,624/- in place of ₹ 4,11,61,718/-. Further submission was that the Tribunal has not examined Annexure-2 submitted by the Assessee Company. The figures as mentioned in Annexure-2 should have been confirmed by the Tribunal instead of merely rejecting the most optimum figure quoted by the Department. Even if the Department could not support it's claim the Assessee also never made out the case that the figure of expenses to be disallowed pertaining to the earlier year was ₹ 4,11,71,718/-. 4. Thus, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
