9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AYs. The ITAT’s order dated 31st December 2012 allowing the Assessee’s appeal for AY 2006-07 has been sustained by this Court by dismissing the Revenue’s appeal on 3rd April 2014. Yet, the ITAT did not follow the said order for AY 2006-07 when it came to the Assessee’s appeals for the subsequent years, i.e. 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. In the considered view of the Court, this was a good enough ground for the Assessee to seek rectification of the order under Section 254 (2) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27th April 2016 passed by the ITAT is hereby set aside. - W. P. (C) No. 8439/2016 - - - Dated:- 5-9-2017 - S. Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Inder Paul Bansal and Mr. Vivek Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 2009-10. The AO made additions under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the aforementioned AYs apart from other additions. It must be mentioned that the present petition concerns the additions made under Section 69C of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the orders of the AO, the Assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT (A) ]. These appeals were partly allowed by the CIT (A) by its order dated 31st January 2012. The additions made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act were deleted in part. 5. While the Revenue filed appeals against the orders of the CIT (A) for each of the above AYs before the ITAT, the Assessee filed Cross Objections ( COs ). To the extent that the Assessee was denied relief by the CIT ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 736/2014) against the order dated 4th January 2013 of the ITAT in ITA No. 1694/Del/2012 (Revenue s Appeal) for AY 2007-08 was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 5th August 2015. Thus, the ITAT s order dismissing the Revenue s appeal for AY 2007-08 was confirmed by this Court. 10. Twenty days after the order in the appeal for AY 2007-08, the ITAT on 24th January 2013 passed a separate order in the appeal for AY 2008-09. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue s appeal by following its own order for AY 2006-07. However, it also dismissed the Assessee s appeal by choosing not to follow its order for AY 2006-07. 11. On the same date, i.e. 24th January 2013, the ITAT by a separate order dismissed the Revenue s appeal for AY 2009-10 following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icted itself by passing separate orders in respect of the Assessee s appeals for the aforementioned AYs on different dates. It is not understood as to how the factual matrix for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 could be different from that of AY 2006-07 such that it would necessitate contradictory orders being passed in each of the AYs. The ITAT s order dated 31st December 2012 allowing the Assessee s appeal for AY 2006-07 has been sustained by this Court by dismissing the Revenue s appeal, being ITA No. 400/2013, on 3rd April 2014. Yet, the ITAT did not follow the said order for AY 2006-07 when it came to the Assessee s appeals for the subsequent years, i.e. 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. 15. In the considered view of the Court, this was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
