The ACIT, Circle-10, Ahmedabad V. Shri Dhiren Hasmukhlal Vora, Ahmedabad

MA 103/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3357 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR

Judgement Text

MA NO. 103 /AHD/2014 (IN ITA NO . 1705 /AHD/20 10 ) A SSESSMENT Y EAR : 200 7 - 08 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH , AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND KUL BHARAT JM ] M.A. NO. 103 /AHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 1705 / AHD / 2 0 10 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 7 - 08 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1 0 , ....... .. . ..... APPELLANT AHMEDAB AD. VS. DHIREN HASMUKHLAL VORA, .... ........ .... .. .. .. .... .. RESPONDENT AHMEDABAD. [PAN: A A WPV 2756 N ] APPEARANCES BY: NARENDRA SINGH , FOR THE A PPELLANT S.N. SOPARKAR, FOR THE RE SPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : AUGUST 21 ST , 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : AUGUST 21 ST , 2015 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM : BY WAY OF THIS REIFICATION PETITION THE APPLICANT ASSESSING OFFICER SEEKS RECALL AND REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL . 2. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN FOR HEARING, IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE PETITION IS TITLED AS APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2013 AND THAT T HE TITLE TO THE PETITION ITSELF ADMITS THAT IT IS SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATE D 29.11.2013. ON GOING THROUGH THE SAID PETITION WHICH RAISE THE GRIEVANCES IN DETAILS AS TO HOW THE DECISION ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT CO RRECT , IT DOES APPEAR THAT THE P ETITION IS ONLY SEEKING REVIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL S ORDER. THE SCOPE OF RECT IFICATION MA NO. 103 /AHD/2014 (IN ITA NO . 1705 /AHD/20 10 ) A SSESSMENT Y EAR : 200 7 - 08 PAGE 2 OF 2 UNDER SECTION 254(2) IS CONFINED TO SUCH MISTAKE S WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND IT CANNOT BE EXTEND ED TO REVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT. 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE CONSIDER THAT THE PRESENT P ETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE ARE , THEREFORE, OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS R ECTIFICATION P ETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 3. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST AUGUST, 2015 ) SD/ - SD/ - KUL BHARAT PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMED ABAD , THE 21 ST S DAY OF AUGUST, 201 5 PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AH MEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD