1992 (9) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ARAF JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by V. A. MOHTA J.--This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for stating the case and referring the following two questions for the opinion of this court : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in rejecting the miscellaneous petition filed by the Department .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ctification holding that the other Tribunal's decision (in which the Madras High Court's decision has been taken note of) was noticed by the Tribunal and hence the matter did not fall within the limited rectification jurisdiction. Having heard the parties, it seems clear to us that the rectification jurisdiction has been properly exercised by the Tribunal. The ground urged could not lie within th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Revenue, invited our attention to the following two decisions : (i) Chemicals and Allied Products v. ITAT [1989] 175 ITR 344 (All). (ii) Shanti Vijay and Co. v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 154 (Delhi). The factual backdrop of both these decisions is entirely different and their ratio does not apply to the matter at hand. Under the circumstances, this application is rejected. No order as to costs.
.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X