2013 (10) TMI 153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mauna M. Bhatt. ORDER:- PER : Akil Kureshi Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petition. Petitioner has challenged a common order dated 23.5.12 passed by the Settlement Commission for various assessment years. The challenge, however, is confined to order insofar as it pertained to the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The petitioner has also challenged ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitioner had filed showed that there was depreciation of Rs.4.89 crores (rounded off) and after adjustments, the unabsorbed depreciation remained at Rs.2.98 crores (rounded off). It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner that if this unabsorbed depreciation was taken into account, the Settlement Commission for the assessment year 2009-10 would not have raised the tax demand as has been done ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ission has power to rectify its own error which are apparent on the face of the record. In fact, the Commission has also not disputed this aspect of the matter. The Commission, however, was of the opinion that this is not a case where power of rectification could be exercised. The Commission opined that accepting the request of the petitioner would amount to reviewing the order. In our view, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, borne in mind and weighed with the Commission while passing the original order of settlement. Had the Commission been emergent of such facts and final order of the settlement passed, perhaps, we would have accepted the Revenue's contention that the Commission having passed an overall order of settlement, it was, therefore, not open to the petitioner to insist on consideration of certain head of....