9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admission of additional grounds. It appears that inadvertently, there is no mentioning of additional grounds. Therefore, this is an apparent mistake from the record requires rectification. The application is disposed of as indicated above. - M.A. No. 138/JP/2016 Arising out if ITA No. 358 & 375/JP/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12. - - - Dated:- 8-3-2017 - Shri Kul Bharat And Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, JJ. Assessee by : Shri Girish Dave (CA) Revenue by : Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT) ORDER Shri Kul Bharat, This Miscellaneous Application by the assessee arise out of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 358 375/JP/2014 seeking rectification of the order dated 27.04.2016. The Ld. Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry to the principles of natural justice and equity it was prayed in the additional ground that the assessment order itself deserved to be quashed annulled. No adverse view on the basis of the material collected at the back of the appellant could be draw. When on looks at the timing and other attendant circumstances relating to the report drawn prepared by the Inspector, the entire report deserves to be disbelieved and rejected. The present appeal order does not deal with this issue. (iii) Another apparent error which has crept in the order of Hon ble Bench is that the appeal preferred by the appellant-assessee has been dismissed solely on the plea that the genuineness of the agreement dated 2.06.2011 was questionable th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm the decision of Hon ble Bench. (v) While relying on the judgment in the case of Narendra Mohan Uniyal (Supra), the ld. CIT (A) had misinterpreted the meaning of land appurtenant to the building on whimsical pleas in para 4.5.1 at page no. 11 of the appeal order. Such interpretation a propounded by the ld. CIT(A) does not hold good from obvious reasons. Accordingly, the appellant had disputed such interpretation vehemently vide additional ground no. 2. The learned Members did not dwell upon such ground, and did not give specific finding regarding definition of land appurtenant to the building as propounded by the ld. CIT(A). In the circumstances, the appeal order is non-speaking and is not a well-reasoned order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given an opportunity for explaining the issue. 2.1. On the Contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative opposed the submissions as made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that there is no apparent mistake from the record. The assessee is trying to seek review of the order. 2.2. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available record. We find that there is an application dated 9/3/2016 praying therein for admission of additional grounds of appeal. We find that as per Order Sheet dated 30/3/2016, there is no mention of additional ground even in the order sought to be rectified. There is no mention of such additional grounds. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
