9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act") against the order dt. 17th Sept., 2008 passed by the Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in MA No. 33/Asr/2008 arising out of ITA No. 322/Asr/2007, relating to the asst, yr. 2003-04. 3. The appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dt. 4th Aug., 2009 for determination of the following substantial question of law : "Whether the Tribunal in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court so passed in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227, wherein the Hon'ble apex Court had held that where the decision of the jurisdictional High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal during the course of the appellate proceedings, the same would c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in its case for filing of the return, therefore, in light of the post-amended provisions of s. 43B of the Act, no addition of the aforesaid amounts was liable to be made in the hands of the assessee'. Accordingly, the AO, vide order dt. 31st Jan., 2006 (Annex A-1) made an addition of Rs. 1,40,048 holding the assessee firm in default for depositing the aforesaid amounts beyond the stipulated time period, feeling aggrieved, the assessee took the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who vide order dt. 29th March, 2007 (Annex A-2) allowed the appeal and deleted the addition of Rs. 1,40,048 made by the AO. Being dissatisfied, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dt. 23rd Nov., 2007 (Annex A-3) allowed the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot permissible. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal was, thus, right in rejecting the application filed by the assessee. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee. In Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.'s case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of s. 254(2) of the Act had pronounced that the non-consideration of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court or of the Supreme Court would constitute mistake apparent from the record'. It was held as under : "39. As stated earlier, the decision was rendered in appeal by the Tribunal, Rajkot. Miscellaneous application came to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
