9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2105 passed under Section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act'). This issue relate to Assessment Year 2002-03. 2. The grievance of the petitioner before us is that during course of hearing leading to the order dated 14th September, 2015 under Section 254(1) of the Act, a legal paperbook was filed wherein a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manilal Tarachand (2002) 120 Taxman Page 676 amongst other cases were relied upon. The Tribunal while passing the order dated 14th September, 2015 did not refer to it and/or deal with it. Thus, it was a mistake apparent on the face of record warranting rectification of the order dated 14th September, 2015. 3. In the above view it is submitted that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ook of 9th September, 2015 and find that all the cases referred by the assessee have been dealt with." 5. It is settled position in law that statement of fact recorded in the order of the Court/Tribunal has to be accepted as correct and conclusive. It cannot be contradicted by affidavit or otherwise as held by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas S. Nayak 1982 (2) SCC 463, Central Bank of India vs. Vrajlal K. Gandhi 2003(6) SCC 573 and Jagvir Singh & Others vs. State (Delhi Admn.) 2007 (5) SCC 359. Thus, mere filing of the paperbook is no indication of the fact that the case law referred to in paperbook was relied upon and submissions made on it during course of hearing of the appeal. Moreover, in cases such as this where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition that the Tribunal omitted to consider a relevant decision in its order though cited and relied upon during the hearing. In this case, the Tribunal has categorically recorded in the impugned order, that the decision of Manilal Tarachand (supra) was not one of the decisions referred to during the course of hearing of 9th September, 2015 as it states cases referred to have been dealt with. Thus, the aforesaid case laws would not apply to the facts of the present case. 7. In the present facts, as pointed out hereinabove, the Tribunal has categorically recorded that all the decisions which were referred to and relied upon by the petitioner on the date of hearing on 9th September, 2015 have been dealt with. 8. However, before closing we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
