TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment year 2007-08 squarely applies to the facts of the present appeal. Tribunal upheld Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. That being the case, the contention of the Department that the appeal order passed by the Tribunal suffers from mistake apparent on the face of record, as envisaged under section 254(2) is without any basis. On the contrary, it is very much clear from the present misc. applications that the Department in the guise of rectification is actually seeking a review of the order which is not permissible in law. AR had submitted that the tax effect on the disputed additions is less than the monetary limit of ₹ 20 lakh as per CBDT Circular no.3/ 2018, dated 11th July 2018. Therefore, the present appeals o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of another assessee Shri Ravish P. Zaidi. Further, the Department has contended that the Tribunal has erred in not clubbing the appeals of the Revenue for all the years i.e., including assessment year 2007-08, which prevented the Department in taking further legal recourse in assessment year 2007-08 due to low tax effect. 3. The learned Authorised Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal has decided the appeals after considering all aspects, factual and legal, relating to the disputed additions. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from mistake apparent from the face of record. Thus, he submitted, the applications filed by the Revenue deserve to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. The facts involved in all the appeals being identical, the Tribunal while disposing off the present appeals not only took note of the factual aspect of the issue but also found that the order passed by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2007-08 squarely applies to the facts of the present appeal. Accordingly, the Tribunal upheld the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. That being the case, the contention of the Department that the appeal order passed by the Tribunal suffers from mistake apparent on the face of record, as envisaged under section 254(2) of the Act, is without any basis. On the contrary, it is very much clear from the present misc. applications that the Department in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
