TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. However, the issues which are not covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, can be decided keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts in the country which hold the field. Applying the above principles in the facts on hand, we find that there are other judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court which are in favour of the Revenue in the given facts and circumstances. These cases have been discussed in the preceding paragraph and the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. In view of above, we find that the instant issue is debatable. Further, we find it is well settled that statutory authority exercise power of review unless such power is expressly conferred. There is no express power of review conferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and Hon ble ITAT after having reliance in the own case of the assessee for the AY 2003-04 in ITA No. 1075/Kol/2009 wherein the Hon ble ITAT decided the issue in favour of Revenue. 3. The ld. AR before us submitted that the principles laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Vs CIT reported in 350 ITR 527 (SC) were brought to the notice of Hon ble ITAT at the time of hearing for consideration. Similarly various clauses of lease agreements were also highlighted to the Hon ble Bench to show the similarity between the facts of the case of assessee vis-a-vis I.C.D.S. (supra). However, the Hon ble ITAT has not considered the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S. as relied by the assessee while pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he application filed by the assessee u/s. 254(2) of the Act, if allowed, would amount to review of the order which is not permissible. The ld. DR further submitted that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case Mysore Mineral Limited Vs. CIT reported in 239 ITR 775 (SC) has directed to allow the depreciation to the assessee on the building though the building was not registered in the name of the assessee. In the case of Mysore Minerals Limited (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed as under : The term owned as occurring in s. 32(1) must be assigned a wider meaning. Anyone in possession of property in his own title exercising such dominion over the property as would enable others being excluded therefrom and having right to us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there are other judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court which are in favour of the Revenue in the given facts and circumstances. These cases have been discussed in the preceding paragraph and the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. In view of above, we find that the instant issue is debatable. 5.2 Further, we find it is well settled that statutory authority exercise power of review unless such power is expressly conferred. There is no express power of review conferred on this Tribunal. Even otherwise, the scope of review does not extend to re-hearing of the case on merit. 5.3 The scope and ambit of application of section 254( 2) is very limited. The same is restricted to rectification of mistake apparent from the reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered in the affirmative, namely, that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income derived by the Radhasoami Satsang was entitled to exemption under ss. 11 and 12 of the IT Act of 1961. All the facts in the instant case were same as of earlier years and the view with regard to the issue in those facts has already been taken up by this Tribunal which is in favour of Revenue. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no mistake apparent from the record which has crept in the order of Hon ble ITAT which needs rectification u/s 254(2) of the Act. However, the assessee is free to explore the remedy available under the law. Hence the MA filed by the assessee is dismissed. 6. In the result, MA of assessee stands dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
