TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, itself "needless to mention, parallel proceedings for achieving the same purpose cannot be allowed to be done in a self same matter” – Decided against the Assessee. - M.A No.658 and 659/M/2012 (arising out of ITA No.7306/Mum/2010 and 5378/Mum/2011) - - - Dated:- 10-7-2013 - Shri B. R. Mittal,(JM) And B. Ramakotaiah, AM,JJ. For the Applicant : Shri Reepal G. Tralshawala For the Respondent : Ms. Neerja Pradhan ORDER Per B. R. Mittal,JM:- By these two Miscellaneous Applications filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee has stated that there is an apparent mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal dated 26.09.2012 for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 in the appeals fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of the assessee. That the said amendment was prospective and not retrospective. It is further stated in the application that the Tribunal while deciding the issue has considered the decision in paragraphs 18 and 19 viz Thistle Properties (P)Ltd V/s ACIT reported in 134 ITD 6(Mum) and have placed reliance on the said decision. The ld. AR has stated that the said decision was not cited during the course of hearing by either of the parties. It is further stated in para (iv)(b) of the application that the facts of the said decision are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee. The assessee in the application has further stated that the Tribunal ought to have followed the earlier decision instead of foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessee in paper book No.II and have also considered the relevant pages of paper book No.I. The ld. DR submitted that the Tribunal has mentioned the case of Thistle Properties (P)Ltd(supra) in paragraph 19 to substantiate the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs of its order and the view taken by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR submitted that the placing of reliance on the said decision by the Tribunal in paragraph 19 does not affect the merits of the case as the Tribunal has deiced the issue after considering the facts and the reasoning cited by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR submitted that there is no apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal and the assessee by these applications wants review of the order of the Tribunal which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt that the assessee has filed the appeals against the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 26.9.20123 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Hon'ble Bombay Court has admitted the question of law. Since the question of law has already been admitted by the Hon'ble High Court, we are of the considered view that the question of considering the impugned order of the Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the Act does not arise. It is relevant to state that the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the IT Appeal No.24 of 2010 in the case Pankaj Rathi V/s CIT vide order dated 18.8.2010 held that the when the appeals have been filed, the Miscellaneous Applications before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, itself "needless to mention, parallel proceedings for achiev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
