TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PREME Court] In the entire order of the ld. CIT(A), he has not discussed the facts of the case, which were relied by counsel for the assessee during course of hearing before him. Ld. CIT(A) has simply stated that the case laws as relied by assessee are distinguishable on facts. It is settled position of law that the appellate authority is required to give its finding on the judgments as relied by counsel merely stating that the decisions relied are distinguishable on facts would not be sufficient. Under these facts, we do not find any merit into the application moved by the Revenue. Moreover, the revenue has not pointed out any mistake apparent from the record. The ground taken for recalling the order is that the order of the Tribunal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue is seeking review of the order which is not permissible under the law. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We find that ld. Sr. D.R. has reiterated the submissions as are made in the Miscellaneous Application. For the sake of clarity, the relevant contents in para 2 3 of the application of Revenue are reproduced as under: 2. In this respect, there is a need to file a miscellaneous Application before the Hon'ble ITAT with respect to the factual mistake in the order of the Hon'ble ITAT as pointed out in above referred report. On going through the Hon'ble ITAT's above mentioned order, it transpires that there was an apparent mistake in deciding the appeal order, passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een decided by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order Thus contrary to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in page-8 of his order where he has stated as follows:- As far as limitation is concerned, the assessee has not been able to substantiate his ground of appeal by facts, and therefore the ground of appeal is dismissed'. Thus, the order of the ITAT is perverse and contrary to the facts on records. Before ld. CIT(A), following grounds were raised by assessee: 1. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to ₹ 20,01,538/- which is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts and as such the appellant could not be charged with any guilt of furnishing inaccurate particulars of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds in appeal are against levy of penalty of ₹ 20,01,538/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. This Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2014 while restoring the appeal for fresh decision had observed that the issue of limitation was not dealt by the ld. CIT(A). However, the contention of the Revenue is that this issue was duly decided by the ld. CIT(A). From the order of the CIT(A), it transpires that the ld.CIT(A) stated that the assessee was unable to substantiate this ground of facts without mentioning the relevant facts of the case. Hence, there is merit into the contention of ld. Counsel for the assessee that order of ld. CIT(A) is nonspeaking on this issue. Further, it was observed by ld. CIT(A) that in support of contention, assessee r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
