9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee’s appeal, which was heard and disposed of by the Tribunal, concerned only two out of the eight heads. Whereas the admissibility of the deduction in respect of the balance six heads was questioned in an independent appeal filed by the Department. It is in these circumstances that Their Lordships held that the order disposing of the appeal of the assessee could not preclude the hearing of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the said appeal, the Department applied for review of the original order. The application for review was dismissed on September 21, 2010. The appeal itself was disposed of on October 27, 2010. After disposal of the appeal, the application for review was dismissed on the ground that - I have to further note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex Court did not opine that the doctrine of merger does not apply. What had happened in that case was that the assessee s appeal, which was heard and disposed of by the Tribunal, concerned only two out of the eight heads. Whereas the admissibility of the deduction in respect of the balance six heads was questioned in an independent appeal filed by the Department. It is in these circumstances that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order dated September 21, 2010 including the question of condonation of delay which the Tribunal did not touch. 9. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for the limited question of considering the prayer for condonation of delay and in case such prayer is allowed, for hearing of the appeal against the order dated September 21, 2010, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
