9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 25.1.2006, whereby it confirmed various additions by virtue of such order. Aggrieved by the same, both the sides challenged the order of CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal. Challenge was made for the entire block period of 1.4.1995 to 26.2.2002. The Tribunal, after an elaborate discussion, passed an exhaustive order on 30.3.2012 and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. 3. Miscellaneous Application was preferred by respondent under Section 254(2) of the Act and the Tribunal allowed such an application on 23.7.2012, recalling its own order on 30.3.2012 and fixed rehearing of the appeal. 4. It is contended before us by the Revenue that it is not open for the Tribunal to examine validity of search proceedings in view of the decision of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Application No.1159 of 2013, where also we had called for the record from the learned advocate for the Revenue as our initial impression was that no arguments on the merits had taken place before the Tribunal. After considering the material placed before us on record, we have dismissed the petition and the present petition also needs to meet the same fate. Instead of giving fresh reasonings in respect of this petition, the issue being identical, it shall have to be accorded the same treatment. It will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant observations made in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Manu P. Vyas (Decc) passed in Special Civil Application No.1159 of 2013 by this Court on 11.2.2013 as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year old. Every day we were arguing 15 to 20 appeals and therefore, being one year old, I do not have any memory with respect to the query made by Shri Manish Bhatt, Advocate as to whether the arguments were advanced on merits or not." 7. From the record therefore, it clearly emerges that the impression carried by the assessee as confirmed by the Tribunal, is not rebutted from any further evidence on record. We would, therefore, proceed to accept the Tribunal's recollection of what transpired during the oral hearing before it true and accurate. 8. In the result, we do not find any merits in the petition in which the principal stand of the department is that the Tribunal could not have rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
