9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) as per its findings contained in paras 4 & 5 of its order. These findings were as follows: "4. The first ground in appeal is against the levy of interest under s. 139(8). It is contended that the assessee firm had paid an advance tax of Rs. 9775 and since the tax payable by the firm on the completion of its assessment case to only Rs. 2,795 there was no question of charging any interest, under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia(1974) 94 ITR 65 (Mad) ;JiwanmalHospitalvs. ITO (1979) 11 CTR (MP) 184 : (1979) 119 ITR 439 (MP);HindustanSteel Forgings vs. CIT (1980) 14 CTR (P&H) : 389 (1980) 121 ITR 793 (P&H) and Mohan Lal Soni vs.Unionof India & Ors. (1983) 33 CTR (Cal) 193 : (1983) 143 ITR 436 (Cal). In any case, it has been contended by the learned departmental representative that the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Prade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s rejected." 2. It has been contended by Shri N. K. Bhuraria, ld. counsel of the assessee that the Tribunal had committed apparent mistake inasmuch as it had not considered in detail the various decisions of the Tribunal including the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Lachmandas Raghunathdas Parihar (1984) 20 TTJ (Jp) 52 (SB). It is further contended by the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order passed by the Tribunal and, therefore, there was no question of either recalling the order of making any modification therein. 4. We have carefully considered the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee and the arguments made by its authorised counsel. We have also once against gone through our appellate order and in particular through paras 4 & 5 thereof which have been reproduced a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through the decision in the case of P.A.P. Chidambara Nadar and we find that in that case the earlier order of the Tribunal had been recalled because it was in conflict with another decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case. That circumstance does not prevail in the case of the assessee. In these circumstances, we do not see any merit in the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
