9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2013 (7) TMI 622 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] came to their knowledge subsequently. Therefore, the assessee has failed to point out any mistake apparent from the record of the Tribunal. When on the last date of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee was asked to explain above legal position and the case was adjourned, he did not appear on the date of hearing to explain anything on the issue. It, therefore, appears that the assessee and their counsel have nothing to say in the matter and are not interested in prosecuting the aforesaid miscellaneous application. The same is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. - Decided against assesse. - M.A. No. 27/Agra/2013 (in ITA No. 139/Agra/2013) Asst. year : 2009-10 - - - Dated:- 14-2-2014 - SHRI BH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd not on the expenditure which has already been paid. The ld. CIT(A), however, found that the assessee has admitted that tax has not been deducted which was due. Further, the decision of ITAT Special Bench above is no longer applicable as the operation of the decision has been stayed by the Hon ble High Court. Therefore, the addition was confirmed. 3. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The findings of the Tribunal in para 3 of the order dated 19.07.2013 are reproduced as under : 3. On consideration of the submissions of the parties, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee. The assessee admitted before the AO that TDS has to be deducted on payment of interest. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013 upholding the decision of ITAT passed by Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports Ltd. (supra). The ld. counsel for the assessee was, therefore, directed to explain that when the aforesaid decision was not cited or argued at the time of hearing of main appeal and the only contention raised regarding stay granted by Andhra Pradesh High Court against the decision of Special Bench and that the Tribunal has no power to review their own orders, the ld. counsel for the assessee was granted time to address on both these points. The miscellaneous application was accordingly adjourned to 07.02.2014. On the date of hearing on 07.02.2014, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to argue the miscellaneous application or to exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of CIT vs. Anamika Builders Pvt. Ltd., 251 ITR 585, wherein it is held that the Tribunal should not change its view already taken in the matter. We are further fortified in our view by the decision of Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ideal Engineers, 251 ITR 743, the decision of Hon ble M.P. High Court in the case of Agarwal Warehousing, 257 ITR 235 (MP) and of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd., 294 ITR 155 in which Hon ble Madras High Court also held that the miscellaneous application should not be considered on the debatable issue. Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. 284 ITR 42 held that the mistake must be so obvious that it can be easily corrected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
