9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 9 July 2018 in both the Assessment Years was on the basis of the record available before it and its understanding/appreciation of the evidence on record for the two Assessment Years. This is not a case of an error apparent on record which would warrant interference. In case the parties are aggrieved by order dated 9 July 2018, it is open to the parties to file an appeal under the Act. The all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 9 July 2018 passed under Section 254(1) of the Act relating to Assessment Years 2008- 09 and 2009-10. 2. The Tribunal by its order dated 9 July 2018 upheld the view of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Assessing Officer had not recorded his dissatisfaction with the suo motu disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act by the Petitioner before invoking Rule 8D of the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 9 July 2018 it had come to the conclusion on perusal of the assessment order that the Assessing Officer has not recorded his dissatisfaction to the assessee s suo motu disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Therefore, it held Rule 8D of the Rules could not be invoked. Thus, dismissed the Petitioner s application for rectification for both the Assessment Years as there was no error app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence on record for the two Assessment Years. This is not a case of an error apparent on record which would warrant interference. In case the parties are aggrieved by order dated 9 July 2018, it is open to the parties to file an appeal under the Act. The allowing of such an application for rectification by the Tribunal would amount to review of the order dated 9 July 2018. This is impermissible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
