9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cribed form had to accompany the review petition. It is evident that the certificate is not in terms of the certificate contemplated by Rule 23(iii) of Chapter IV of the Bombay High Court Rules. Such a certificate is required so that the Advocate who files the review petition must take responsibility for the grounds raised therein - Even if the above defect is ignored, it is satisfied that no case is made out for the exercise of review jurisdiction. The Petitioner has instituted this review petition to once again argue the matter. In any event, based upon the same, no case is made out for the exercise of review jurisdiction. The contention that the Petitioner is a loss-making unit and, therefore, there ought to be no insistence for 10% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erits without referring to the limitation issue. 3. Now, this review application has been filed on the grounds set out in paragraphs 4A to 4D of the review petition. 4. At the outset, the review petition must be supported by the Advocates Certificate provided under Chapter IV Rule 23 of the Bombay High Court Rules. The format of the certificate is provided under the Rules and the same reads as follows:- "23 ... … … (i) ... … … (ii) … … … (iii) Certificate of Advocate for ground of review. - Every application for review shall, if filed by an Advocate, bear a Certificate under his hand to the following effect :- CERTIFICATE I, .............. Advocate for the abovementioned ... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise of review jurisdiction. The Petitioner has instituted this review petition to once again argue the matter. Mr Mukhi did precisely the same. 8. The grounds of review now suggest that the statement of the Advocate was conditional to our waiving pre-deposit of 10%. It is further argued that CBIC Circulars are binding on the appellate authorities. In terms of these Circulars, the requirement of pre-deposit could not have been insisted for the class of assessees to which the Petitioner belongs. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon UCO Bank vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC), Red Chilli International Sales vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr. CWP No.10073 of 2022 dtd. 2 June 2022, M/s. Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
