9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions in the present application, assessee is merely seeking a review of our order dated 31.7.2013, by criticizing the action of the Tribunal in following of certain decisions and not following certain others, which is not permissible in these proceedings under S.254(2) of the Act, the scope of which is confined to mere rectification of obvious/patent mistakes apparent from record, which might have crept into an order of the Tribunal. In the absence of any such mistakes specifically pointed out by the assessee in the present application, the same is liable to be rejected as devoid of merit. We do so accordingly and reject the application of the assessee. - Decided against assessee. - Misc. Apln. No.223/Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2014 - S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest having been chosen by the appellant, is a SUOMOTTO observation, and the Tribunal failed to note that all registered valuers are granted recognition by the CIT/CCIT and they are governed by statutory rules and regulations. It is also submitted hat the Tribunal has erred in not following the solitary cited decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T. V/s. Raman Kumar Suri reported in 81 DTR 33, which clinches to the issue as to the binding nature of registered valuer s report on valuation as on 1.4.1981. He further submitted that the Tribunal made reference, on the other hand, to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T. V/s. Godavari Devi Saraf reported in 113 ITR 89, though the same has not been consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee also referred to the decision of the Kerala high Court in the case of CIT V/s. Travancore Titaanium Products Ltd. (265 ITR 526), in support of his contentions on the binding nature of the decisions of the coordinate bench. The learned counsel for the assessee, thus submitted that there is mistake in the order of the Tribunal dated 31.7.2013 and consequently the same is liable to be rectified/recalled. 3. The Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that there is no mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal dated 31.7.2013 and the present applciationof the assee is liable to eb rejected, as it is devoid of merit. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
