9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfied with the impugned common Order dated 23rd July 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal"] in Misc. Application Nos.12 & 13/AHD/2015 for Assessment Years 2006-2007 & 2007-2008, by which the Tribunal has dismissed the said Applications, the Revenue has preferred the present Special Civil Applications under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Facts leading to filing of Special Civil Applications in nutshell are as under : 3.1 That earlier, against the common order passed by the ITAT in I.T.A Nos. 2698 & 2699/Ahd/2009 for A.Y 2006-2007 & 2007-2008, the Revenue preferred Tax Appeal No. 367 of 2013 before this Court. That, vide Oral Order dated 21st Oc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which the earlier M.As were preferred. That, by impugned common Order, the learned Tribunal has rejected/dismissed the said Applications by observing that the second rectification application is not maintainable. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common order dated 23rd July 2015 passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner-Revenue has preferred the present writ petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard Shri K.M Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioner- Revenue. 6. It is required to be noted that there is a specific finding recorded by the learned Tribunal by passing the impugned Order that after the earlier M.As which were dismissed by the Tribunal, the Revenue has preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de shall not be maintainable. In the aforesaid decision, Division Bench had an occasion to consider decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT v. Pearl Woolen Mills, reported in [2011] 330 ITR 164 [P&H]; decision of Madras High Court in case of CIT v. Panchu Arunachalam, reported in [2010] 323 ITR 31 [Madras] as well as decision of Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Aiswarya Trading Company, reported in [2011] 331 ITR 521 [Kerala]. After considering the aforesaid decisions and the other decisions on the point, Division Bench has observed and held in para 17 as under :- "Considering the aforesaid decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Madras High Court and Kerala High Court, and applying the same to the facts of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
