TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismiss ground no. 5 Applicability of provisions of Section 36(1)(viii) to the assessee - assessee’s claim was allowed by the Tribunal relying upon the orders of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09 - HELD THAT:- Upon perusal of para 6, we find that it is true that these facts were already noted by the bench while adjudicating the issue. It is not the case of the revenue that certain facts were overlooked which resulted into certain error in the order. The only point urge is that the decision is not acceptable since the issue has not been considered in proper perspective. However, when the decision has been rendered with due appreciation of facts and there are no slippages, it could not be said that there was m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed only on 23/01/2018 and therefore, considering this date, the application was within the stipulated time limit. Our attention has been drawn to the following orders of the Tribunal in this regard: - i) Shri Jagmohan Gurbakshish Singh Vs DCIT [MA Nos. 40,42/Chd/2018 dated 27/04/2018 ITAT, Chandigarh] ii) ACIT Vs Indo Global Warehousing Services P. Ltd. [MA No.16/Pun/2018 dated 17/12/2018 ITAT, Pune] iii) Srinivas Sasidhar Chaganty Vs ITO [MA No.05/Hyd/2017 dated 12/07/2017 ITAT, Hyderabad] 2.2 We have carefully considered the given factual matrix. The undisputed position that emerges is the fact that the order of the Tribunal has been received by the revenue only on 23/01/2018 which is evident from Authorization Memo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.3 Upon perusal of the judicial pronouncements as cited before us. we find that the Chandigarh Tribunal in Shri Jagomohan Gurbakshish Singh [supra] considering the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Peterplast Synthetics P. Ltd Vs ACIT [2013 86 CCH 0314] Liladhar T. Kushlani Vs Commissioner of Customs [Tax Appeal No. 915 of 2016 dated 25/01/2017] concluded that the date of dispatch / receipt of the copy of the relevant order and not the date of passing of the order was to be considered for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Peterplast Synthetics P. Ltd. [supra] has observed that the date of order would mean and must be construed as meaning the date of communica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ix, we find that as counted from the date of receipt of the order i.e. 23/01/2018, the application is within time and therefore, we proceed to dispose-off the same as argued before us. 3. The first error pointed out by the revenue is that the conclusion drawn in para 10 while adjudicating fifth ground of assessee s appeal regarding disallowance of lease premium would need correction since while adjudicating the issue, reliance was placed on the decision of this Tribunal for AYs 2007-08 2008-09 wherein the matter was decided against the assessee. Upon perusal, we concur with the same. Accordingly, the last line of para 10 in the stated order may be read as under: - Following the orders for earlier years, we dismiss ground no. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y noted by the co-ordinate bench in para 6 and the matter was adjudicated after considering the same. 4.2 Upon perusal of para 6, we find that it is true that these facts were already noted by the bench while adjudicating the issue. It is not the case of the revenue that certain facts were overlooked which resulted into certain error in the order. The only point urge is that the decision is not acceptable since the issue has not been considered in proper perspective. However, when the decision has been rendered with due appreciation of facts and there are no slippages, it could not be said that there was mistake apparent from record which was amenable to rectification. There is no power with Tribunal to review the issues unless expre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
