TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Shri B. Ramakotaiah And Shri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Applicant : Shri K. C. Devadas For the Respondent : Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, DR ORDER Per Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member By this application under S.254(2) of the Income-tax 1961, the applicant-assessee seeks rectification/recall of the order of this Tribunal dated 10.10.2012 in ITA No.363/Hyd/2012 on the ground that certain mistakes apparent from record have crept into the same. 2. We heard both sides and perused the material on record, in the light of the averments made by the assessee in the present application. By the order of this Tribunal dated 10.10.2012, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed upholding the action of the CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismissing the appeal on the assumption and admission of certain facts which are not correct, on the ground of short fall in the payment of admitted tax on the returned income. 5. On careful consideration of the matter, we find that it was consistent plea of the assessee right from the beginning, including during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), that there was admittedly short fall in the payment of admitted taxes, and it is evident from the impugned order of the CIT(A) that the assessee has been pleading financial stringency, and, in fact, assessee was praying for adjournments from time to time, to enable it to make payment of the balance outstanding amount of admitted tax. It is apt to extract, at this juncture, relevant obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en admitted by the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee. In any event, when there was admittedly, substantial shortfall in the payment of admitted tax all through the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), and the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee, as noted by the CIT(A) in the impugned order itself, all through the assessment proceedings, was pleading for time, by granting adjournment of hearing, to make good the short-fall by making the requisite payment of tax, it is not correct to say that there was no violation in terms of S.249(4) of the Act. That being so, there can be no mistake in the view taken by the Tribunal, in confirming the order of the CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal, on ground of short-fall i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
