9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n both these petitions and as such with respect to the same assessee, arising out of the common order but with respect to different assessment orders, both these writ petitions are head and disposed of together. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common Order dated 23rd July 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C Bench, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as, the Tribunal ] in Misc. Application Nos.12 13/AHD/2015 for Assessment Years 2006-2007 2007-2008, by which the Tribunal has dismissed the said Applications, the Revenue has preferred the present Special Civil Applications under Article 226 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Facts leading to filing of Special Civil Applications in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven without preferring any appeals thereafter against the original order passed by the learned ITAT in I.T.A Nos. 2698 2699/Ahd/2009, the Revenue again preferred M.A Nos. 12 13/Ahd/2015 requesting the Tribunal to rectify its earlier orders on the very grounds on which the earlier M.As were preferred. That, by impugned common Order, the learned Tribunal has rejected/dismissed the said Applications by observing that the second rectification application is not maintainable. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common order dated 23rd July 2015 passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner-Revenue has preferred the present writ petitions under Articles 226 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard Shri K.M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vasantben H. Sheth, reported in [2015] 372 ITR 536 [Guj]. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Vasantben H Sheth [Supra] has specifically observed that second rectification application on the same grounds on which earlier application were made shall not be maintainable. In the aforesaid decision, Division Bench had an occasion to consider decision of Punjab Haryana High Court in case of CIT v. Pearl Woolen Mills , reported in [2011] 330 ITR 164 [P H]; decision of Madras High Court in case of CIT v. Panchu Arunachalam , reported in [2010] 323 ITR 31 [Madras] as well as decision of Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Aiswarya Trading Company , reported in [2011] 331 ITR 521 [Kerala]. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
