1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 26/IND/09 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.719/IND/2007 & CO NO. 140/IND /2007 INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1) BHOPAL APPLICANT VS KAUSHAL CHANDRA JAIN BHOPAL PAN AAUPJ 6520 C) RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JM THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE REVENUE ON THE GROUND THAT TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED ON THE GROUND THAT THOUGH THE TAX EFFECT WAS RS. 49,191/-, HOWEVER, THE APPEAL INVOLVED A SUBSTA NTIAL QUESTION OF LAW, HENCE, FELL WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN THE C BDT INSTRUCTIONS AND, THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED ON MERITS. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED, IT IS NOTED THAT NOW IT HAS BECOME A SETTLED 2 PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT AN ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF SECTION 10(10C) AND 89(1), HENCE, IT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN T HE PARAMETERS OF EXCEPTIONAL SITUATIONS PROVIDED IN THE CIRCULAR OF THE CBDT. CONSEQUENTLY, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS MISCELLANEOU S APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF L EARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 9 TH APRIL, 2010. SD SD (V.K. GUPTA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER 9 TH APRIL, 2010 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, G UARD FILE *DBN/