9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue : Shri D.G. Pansari ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. The Revenue has filed the aforesaid misc. applications purportedly under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), seeking recall of the order dated 4th December 2015, passed in ITA no.1343 & 1344/Mum./2014. 2. As stated in the misc. application and submitted before us by the learned Departmental Representative, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Tribunal suffers from mistake apparent from the face of record. Thus, he submitted, the applications filed by the Revenue deserve to be dismissed. 4. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the facts on record, the Assessing Officer on identical facts and circumstances made additions of different amounts at the hands of the assessee und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on protective basis. Against the aforesaid decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Department preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The appeal of the Revenue relating to the assessment year 2007-08 initially came up for consideration before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 10th June 2015, in ITA no.1345/Mum./2014, upheld the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review of the order which is not permissible in law. 5. Further, in the course of hearing, learned Authorised Representative had submitted that the tax effect on the disputed additions is less than the monetary limit of Rs. . 20 lakh as per CBDT Circular no.3/ 2018, dated 11th July 2018. Therefore, the present appeals of the Revenue would otherwise not be maintainable. We find substantial force ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
