9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1: 2015, a copy of which is placed at Exhibit- A hereto. 2. The Hon'ble Tribunal has disposed off ITA No. 2398/Ahd/2012 after discussing the Ground No. 4 in Para 20 to 24, on Page No. 11 to 13 of the Order. Hon'ble Tribunal was kind enough to allow this ground fully in favour of the Appellant vide Para 23 and 24 of the Order. However, the Hon'ble Tribunal in Para 23 & 24 of the Order has observed as under: "23. We have considered the rival submission and perused the material on records. We find that the co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case for Asst. Years 2005-06 to 2007-08 has decided similar issue by observing as under :- 5.4.1 we have considered the rival submission and we find that this issue was decided by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Para 23, the Hon'ble Bench has accepted that the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for Asst. Years 2005-06 to 2007-08 has decided similar issue and reproduced the relevant findings, wherein it is crystal clear that the coordinate bench decided the issue in assessee's own case for Asst. Years 2005-06 to 2007-08 and has held that the assessee is eligible to adopt the sale price of the electricity at Rs. 4.55 per unit against Rs. 1.86 allowed by A.O. in his assessment order. Thereafter in succeeding Para 24, even though the Hon ble Bench following the order of Co-ordinate bench, has held that we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) and accordingly the ground of appeal is partly allowed, which is incor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09 as per para 3 of the Order placed at Exhibit C applying the same ratio to the case of assessee for the year under consideration , the rate of sell of electricity as taken by the assessee at Rs. 4.55 per unit ought to have been accepted and the grounds raised by the assessee ought to have been allowed. 2. Ld. Authorised Representative further submitted that the only error cropped up in the Tribunal's order is in para 24 wherein Hon. Tribunal has apparently mentioned of not interfering in the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) and has partly allowed the ground of assessee whereas in the preceding paragraph 23, Hon. Tribunal accepted assessee's ground by following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for Asst. Year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is partly allowed and no interference is called for in the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A). 5. In view of our above discussion, we are of the opinion that in these peculiar facts an apparent mistake has cropped up in the Tribunal's order dated 19.11.15 giving rise to a contradictory view occurring in para 23 and para 24 of the order. We thus recall our finding mentioned in para 24 of the order dated 19.11.15 and replace it with the following paragraph :- "Respectfully following the ratio of decision taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case, we set aside the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) and allow the ground of assessee." 6. In the result, Miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
