9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d expenses u/s. 14A by applying the formula prescribed under Rule 8D and the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Tribunal. The ld. A.R. submitted that provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules were notified with effect from 24.03.2008 and are therefore applicable with effect from A.Y. 08-09 and not to earlier years and therefore not to the year under appeal. He further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in Assessee's own case for A.Y. 06-07 has held that Rule 8D is applicable from A.Y 08-09 and has no retrospective effect. He also placed on record the copy of the decision of Hon'ble High Court in Assessee's own case in Special Civil Application No. 15726 of 2010 order dated 28.02.2011. He therefore submitted that disallowance u/s. 14A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gone through the Miscellaneous Application. With respect to disallowance u/s, 14A in ITA No. 2369/Ahd/2010, it is seen that for the year under consideration being A.Y. 2007-08, the disallowance u/s. 14A has been made by following the provisions of Rule 8D. We further find that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Assessee's own case is A.Y. 2006-07 while deciding the Special Civil Application No. 15726 of 2010, has held that provisions of Rule 8D are applicable from A.Y. 2008-09 and is not retrospective. Considering the aforesaid fact, we are of the view that there is an apparent mistake in the order of Tribunal and therefore recall the order in ITA No. 2369/Ahd/2010 for a limited purpose to decide the issue with respect to disallowance u/s. 14A o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue the whole matter in the garb of rectification under section 254(2). It has held as under: "It is well settled that an oversight of a fact cannot constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under s. 254(2). Similarly, failure of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on the record, although it may be an error of judgment. The mere fact that the Tribunal has not allowed a deduction, even if the conclusion is wrong, that will be no ground for moving an application under s. 254(2). Further, in garb of application for rectification, the assessee cannot be allowed to be permitted to reopen and reargue the whole matter, which is beyond the scope of this section." &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
