9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly, the assessee has filed MA.No.81/Hyd/2015 against the order of this Tribunal in ITA.No.1269/Hyd/2012 and the Registry had taken an objection that the order of the Tribunal being common and consolidated order both in ITA.No.1428/Hyd/2012 and ITA.No.1269/Hyd/2012, two M.As are required to be filed and that is how M.A.No.82/Hyd/2015 in ITA.No.1428/Hyd/2012 has been filed. Since the second M.A. is also against the very same order of this Tribunal in ITA.No.1428/Hyd/2012 it is not maintainable and the same is rejected and dismissed as not maintainable. As regards M.A.No.81/Hyd/2015 in ITA.No.1269/Hyd/2012 the assessee has made the following submissions : 1. "The appellant and the Respondent preferred Appeals before the I TAT, Hyderabad and the Appeals are numbered as 1269/H/2012 and 1428/H/2012 respectively. 2. The appeals were disposed off vide Order dated 31.07.2013. 3. A Miscellaneous Application was preferred on 20.09.2013 and which was numbered as MA No. 223/H/2013 and was disposed off on 03.02.2014. The Miscellaneous Application was. rejected. 4. The appellant in the present Miscellaneous Application wishes to submit that there is a mistake apparent from the record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, so that the different benches of the Tribunal cannot function with different voices. This is a fundamental principle of judicial property and discipline. 9. In view of the facts stated above and having regard to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Honda Siel Power Products vs. CIT reported in 295 ITR 466 on binding nature of the decisions of coordinate bench and also the Jurisdictional HC order in the case of CIT vs. Ashven Datla (Supra) it is submitted that the order passed by the I.T.A.T in the Appellant's case calls for rectification to state that the valuation report of the Registered Valuer's valuation as on 01.04.1981 is to be upheld while computing the capital gains in the case of the appellant or in the alternative recalled for fresh adjudication. 10. It is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass orders as deem fit." 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made in the M.A., while the Ld. D.R. submitted that the very same issue has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in M.A.No.223/Hyd/2013 and the Tribunal has rejected the M.A. and on the same lines, this M.A. also needs to be rejected. Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,416 as on 1.4.81. The learned counsel then took us through paras 19 and 20 of our order dated 31.7.2013, and submitted that there are mistakes apparent from record in the said order of the Tribunal while adjudicating upon the said ground. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee. The learned counsel submitted that the observation of the Tribunal at para 19 that the registered valuer would be influenced by vested 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 considered. Having f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee in the present application, and the contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee before us on those lines, we find that the assessee is merely criticizing certain observations of the Tribunal in its order dated 31.7.2013 and the action of the Tribunal in not following the decisions cited by the assessee, but following certain other decisions. An overall reading of the order of this Tribunal dated 31.7.2013 clearly reflects the consideration of all the contentions of the parties, including the decisions relied upon by them. No specific mistake apparent from record which has crept into the order of the Tribunal, warranting rectification/recall, has been brought out by the assessee. By the elaborate contentions 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 spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
