9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the findings of the Tribunal - the ROM application is liable to be rejected - decided against applicant. - E/1188/2008 - Misc. Order No. M/10414/2016-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 19-7-2016 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (J) and Shri P.M. Saleem, Member (T) Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s had observed that there was no machinery in the name of M/s. BEW and M/s. CEPL and that they used machinery of the assessee; that the electricity meters were in the name of Hitech and Mahalaxmi Industrial Estate but were being paid by the assessee. He contended that these findings were factually incorrect. The ld. Advocate also contended that the reliance by the Tribunal on the Panchnama dated 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... error apparent on the record. He drew attention to paras 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the subject order of the Tribunal dated 11-1-2016 wherein the facts of the case and evidences in a nutshell are discussed. He also drew attention to the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), at internal Page 10 of the Impugned Older-in-Appeal dated 11-7-2000. He also submitted that the issue of limitation was not pressed d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examination of records, we find force in the arguments of the ld. AR for Revenue. We find that the contentions of the applicant would require re-appreciation of the facts and evidences of the case and would require detailed arguments on the same. The so-called errors pleaded by the applicant are not errors apparent on record and what is sought is a review of the order which is not sanctioned by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess of reasoning. Similarly, this Court has decided in ITO v. Ashok Textiles, 41 ITR 732 that while rectifying a mistake, an erroneous view of law or a debatable point cannot be decided. Moreover, incorrect application of law can also not be corrected. 6. In view of the above, we find that the ROM application is liable to be rejected and we hold accordingly. 7. MA (ROM) is dismissed. (Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
