TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was no material omission or mistake on the part of the Tribunal in recording the contentions of learned Authorised Representative for the assessees before it – Relying upon Smt. Poonam Kumari. Versus Income-Tax Officer. [1996 (3) TMI 156 - ITAT ALLAHABAD] - the applicants are merely disputing the findings of the Tribunal and seeking a review of the order of the Tribunal, which is not possible under S.254(2) of the Act – Decided against Assessee. - M A No 70/Hyd/2013 to 80 /Hyd/2013, ITA 1099/Hyd/2010 to 1109/Hyd/2010 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2013 - Shri Chandra Poojari And Shri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Applicants : Shri D. Ranga Rao For the Respondent : Shri M. H. Naik DR ORDER Per Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member:- By thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to recall its order. He submitted that the order of the Tribunal may accordingly be modified keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Ved Prakash (209 ITR 448). 3. The Learned Departmental Representative, on the contrary, opposing the above contentions of the assessee, strongly supporting the order of the Tribunal dated 20.7.2012 submitted that there is no mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal, and all that the assessee is seeking through its elaborate arguments, is only a review of the order of the Tribunal dated 20.7.2012, by re-arguing its case. Since such a review is not possible in these proceedings under S.254(2) of the Act, it is submitted that the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs of the Tribunal and seeking a review of the order of the Tribunal, which is not possible in these proceedings under S.254(2) of the Act. 5. Before parting, it is pertinent to note that the assessees have preferred similar applications earlier, seeking rectification/recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 20.7.2012, and the same have been rejected by the Tribunal, after detailed consideration of various contentions of the assessee, vide its order dated 11.1.2013 in MA Nos.203 to 213/Hyd/2012. The earlier applications of the assessee under S.254(2), having been rejected already, it is not permissible to move once again applications under S.254(2) for the very same relief of review of our decision, in the guise of rectification/recall o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
