9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying upon the evidence which were never produced before the Tribunal. In the above view, on merits, we find no fault with order of the Tribunal in rejecting the Petitioner's rectification application dated 12th October, 2012 and further taking into account the conduct of the Petitioner, we see no reason to entertain the Petition. - Writ Petition No. 2735 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And A. K. Menon, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. F. B. Andhyarujina, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mehul Rathod and Mr. M. F. Andhyarujina For the Respondent : Mr. Suresh Kumar with Ms. Samiksha Kanani ORDER P. C. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impeaches the order dated 12th May, 2015 passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 12th October, 2012 passed in appeal by the Tribunal. In the above circumstances, Petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Application dated 27th November, 2012 before the Tribunal, seeking to rectify the order dated 12th October, 2012 passed by the Tribunal as it had not dealt with/ considered the documents filed as Paperbook I II. 4. By the impugned order dated 12th May, 2015, on the Rectification Application, the Tribunal accepted the fact that the Paperbook I was filed/ tendered during the hearing, leading to the order dated 12th October, 2012. This Paperbook I contains page Nos. 1 to 40. However, it is an admitted position that the document referred to PaperS. book I would have no bearing to the result arrived at in the order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a communication dated 5th February, 2016 from the Advocate who appeared for the Petitioner in the appeal proceedings before the Tribunal, leading to the order dated 12th October, 2012. The affidavit as well as the letter of the Advocate who appeared in the appeal proceedings (incidentally this Advocate did not appear at the rectification application) states that first compilation of Paperbook I was filed with the Tribunal on 5th June, 2012 and the second compilation of documents called Paperbook II was filed on 22nd September, 2012. The communication from the Advocate who appeared in the appeal hearing before the Tribunal is annexed to the affidavit and he categorically does not state the number of pages which the compilation called Paper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to consider and/or deal with the pages 1 to 90 filed before the CIT(A), which the Petitioner states it a part of the Paperbook II. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal in refusing to consider those documents as they were never a part of the proceedings which lead to the order dated 12th October, 2012. The proceedings for rectification are not a proceeding to recall the order so as to have the matter reheard on merits by relying upon the evidence which were never produced before the Tribunal. 10. In the above view, on merits, we find no fault with order of the Tribunal in rejecting the Petitioner's rectification application dated 12th October, 2012 and further taking into account the conduct of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
