9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred in connection with public issue and this is a private placement is recorded in paragraph No.3 of the order dated 15 June 2012. The above submission was considered in paragraph No.7 of the above order holding that it was a matter of opinion depending upon the exact nature of the issue. Moreover the issue was also debatable. Therefore outside the scope of rectification. A review is an exception to the general rule that once a Court passes an order it becomes functus officio. The review is generally permissible when new and important evidence not available when the matter was first heard or in case there is some glaring error/mistake apparent on the face of the record. In this case, it is neither. In fact almost one hour was taken in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... azi For the Respondent : Mr. Madhur Agarwal ORDER P.C. Both these review petitions are directed against the common order dated 15 June 2012 passed by this Court in respect of two appeals filed by the revenue. Both the appeals were filed against the common order dated 21 May 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in respect of Assessment Year 2000-01 and 2001-02. 2. The basic question which arose for consideration before this Court in the two appeals filed by the revenue was: whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal were justified in holding that the issue in respect of claim for deduction under Section 35D of the Act allowed in respect of expenses incurred in connection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the hearing of the appeal. In fact, the revenue's submission that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of Section 35D(2)(c)(iv) of the Act on the ground that the same is available only where expenditure is incurred in connection with public issue and this is a private placement is recorded in paragraph No.3 of the order dated 15 June 2012. The above submission was considered in paragraph No.7 of the above order holding that it was a matter of opinion depending upon the exact nature of the issue. Moreover the issue was also debatable. Therefore outside the scope of rectification. 5. So far as the second issue is concerned, we find that the review application filed is contrary to the appeal memo filed by the revenue. In the me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing error/mistake apparent on the face of the record. In this case, it is neither. In fact almost one hour was taken in an attempt to show us that it was an error apparent on record. In fact, the contentions taken before us in support of the review as pointed out above are in direct conflict/opposed to the statement of facts mentioned by the Commissioner of Income Tax in the appeal memo filed against the order dated 21 May 2010 of the Tribunal which led to the order dated 15 June 2012 of this Court. We find that the review application seems to have been filed in a most casual manner without having examined the case of the revenue in its memo of appeal which incidentally is the case they came to the Court in respect of the second issue. So f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
