9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Tribunal is beyond the scope of section 254(2). In these circumstances, the Tribunal should not have allowed the Miscellaneous Application.The questions of law raised in this appeal are decided in favour of the appellant-Revenue. - Tax Case Appeal No. 536 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2021 - THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI For the Appellant : Mr. J. Narayanaswamy , Senior Standing Counsel For the Respondent : No Appearance JUDGMENT ( Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J. ) Challenging the order passed in M.A.No.22/Mds/2011 in I.T.A.No.1599/Mds/2009 in respect of the Assessment Year 2005-2006 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06 and that Rule 8D came into effect only on 01.04.2007 and therefore, the order passed should not be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The Tribunal following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of Godrej Boyce and Mfg. Col. Ltd. reported in 234 CTR 7, expunged the relevant portion of the order in the Tribunal's order dated 14.10.2010 and allowed the Miscellaneous Application. Aggrieved over the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed the above appeal. 3. At the time of admission of the above appeal, the following substantial question of law arose for consideration:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal was rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. In the case on hand, the non consideration of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court cannot be construed as mistake as contemplated under section 254(2) . When the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the order passed by them, the remedy open to the assessee is to file an appeal against the order, if they are aggrieved over the same. The order passed by the Tribunal is beyond the scope of section 254(2). In these circumstances, the Tribunal should not have allowed the Miscellaneous Application in M.A.No.22/Mds/2011. In such view of the matter, the the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside,. The questions of law raised in this appeal are decided in favo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
