9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant (2008 (11) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY ) after referring to various decisions of the Apex Court directed the President of the Tribunal to frame guidelines to prevent delay in delivery of orders/judgments. It also directed all the revisional and appellate authorities (including Tribunal) under the Act to decide the matters heard by them within a period of three months from the date of the conclusion of the hearing. This is further compounded by the fact that the submission of the petitioner in respect of the entire issue being covered by orders of coordinate benches was according to the petitioner, lost sight of while passing the order dated 3rd February, 2016. In the above view, the impugned order rejecting rect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order dated 3rd February, 2016 passed under Section 254(1) of the Act, the jurisdictional High Court on an identical issue in the case of DIT(E), Mumbai v/s. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (Income Tax Appeal No.2174/2013) rendered on 18th April, 2016 has decided the issue arising herein in favour of the petitioner-assessee. It is submitted subsequent decisions of jurisdictional High Court would warrant of rectification of earlier orders as held by the Apex Court in ACIT v/s. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. 305 ITR 227. Therefore it is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have exercised its jurisdiction and allowed the rectification application. 3. The impugned order of the Tribunal while rejecting the recti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er compounded by the fact that the submission of the petitioner in respect of the entire issue being covered by orders of coordinate benches was according to the petitioner, lost sight of while passing the order dated 3rd February, 2016. 4. In the above view, the impugned order rejecting rectification application has not considered the aforesaid Rules and the binding decisions of this Court. Therefore on the aforesaid ground alone, the impugned order is not sustainable. 5. So far the second issue viz. rectification of the order passed under Section 254(1) of the Act on the basis of a subsequent decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (supra) is concerned, the impugned order does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
