TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal or brought the decision of S.Narayanappa Vs. CIT [ 1966 (9) TMI 36 - SUPREME COURT] during the appeal hearing. Similarly, the decision of Hon ble Coordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt.Gurinder Kaur [ 2006 (6) TMI 144 - ITAT DELHI-A] was also not brought to the notice of the Bench during the appeal hearing. Therefore, there is no occasion to consider the decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Narayanappa and the decision of Coordinate Bench of Delhi in the case of Smt.Gurinder Kaur. It is settled issue that once, the Tribunal has considered the decisions of the Hon ble High Courts or Supreme Court and taken a conscious decision, review of the same is not permissible. Miscellaneous Applications, the arg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [259 ITR 19], the decision of Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Trend Electronics [379 ITR 0456] and the decision of Hon ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Berger Pains (India) Ltd. During the appeal hearing the Ld.DR did not bring any other case law to controvert the decisions relied up on by the assessee. Accordingly, the ITAT held that the AO is duty bound to communicate the reasons on the request made by the assessee as held by the Hon ble Apex court in M/s GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO [259 ITR 19] and non-communication of reasons renders the assessment invalid and accordingly quashed the assessments framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 vide orders I.T.A Nos.294, 295 and 576/Viz/2014 dated 20.12.2017. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, there is no occasion to consider the decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Narayanappa and the decision of Coordinate Bench of Delhi in the case of Smt.Gurinder Kaur. It is settled issue that once, the Tribunal has considered the decisions of the Hon ble High Courts or Supreme Court and taken a conscious decision, review of the same is not permissible. This view is supported by the decision of Hon ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in Ajay Kapoor.v.Commissioner of Income-tax, 93 Taxman.com 433. Similarly the coordinate bench of ITAT, Bangalore in Gowthami Associates. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (2) (2), Bangalore, [2018] 89 taxmann.com 192 (Bangalore - Trib.) held as under: 7. Section 254 of the Act reads ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, in a miscellaneous petition under Section 254(2), the Tribunal would be exercising power of review of its earlier order on merits but not 'rectification of mistake apparent from the record' and such review would certainly be beyond the scope of section 254(2). 8. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court which is the jurisdictional High Court and which is binding on us, we are of the view that through this miscellaneous petition the assessee is seeking a review of the earlier order of the Tribunal by reconsidering the application of principles laid down by superior Courts to the facts of the case or by reconsidering its findings recorded, or by reconsidering the application of the relevan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
