9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a fundamental error on the part of the revenue in submitting that the order under challenge is a consequential one and, therefore, appealable - once a party has challenged the order of the Tribunal on an application for rectification, the appeal u/s 260A of the I.T. Act is not maintainable as decided in Chem Amit Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax [2004 (11) TMI 24 - BOMBAY High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order dated 16th November, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in miscellaneous application being M.A.No.209/Mum/2011. That miscellaneous application was preferred by the respondent-assessee invoking the provisions of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the I.T. Act' for short). The assessee submitted that the original order passed for the assessment year 1997-98 in I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on an application filed as miscellaneous application and invoking the Tribunal's power under section 254(2) of the I.T. Act. The effect is that the Tribunal has amended its original order. To this amendment the law laid down by this Court in the case of Chem Amit V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 272 ITR 397 decided on 23rd November, 2004 in Income Tax Appeal No.702 of 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laneous application dated 25th March, 2011. That was an application by the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal has recalled its original order for a de novo consideration of the issue of depreciation and partially restored the appeal to its file. We do not find, therefore, that the present appeal can be entertained. The present appeal cannot be said to be challenging the order in appeal passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
