2015 (2) TMI 854

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the contention raised by the petitioner-assessee particularly in paragraph 12 of the written submissions of the note submitted before the said respondent has not been considered and as such, there is an error apparent on the face of the record, to be acted upon by this court. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the assessment was finalised as per exhibit P1 series orders for the different assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. On challenging the same by filing appeals, interference was declined and the appeals were dismissed as per exhibit P2 order dated August 28, 2014, passed by the second respondent. Since the vital points raised by the petitioner has been stated as omitted to be considered, exhibit P3 application for rectific....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Gujarat High Court, without any regard to the law declared by the Allahabad High Court. Referring to the decision rendered by the Madras Bench of the concerned Tribunal in C. O. No. 155 (Mds) of 2013 in I. T. A. No. 2076 of 2012, the learned senior counsel points out that, if two views are available, the one which is favourable to the assessee has to be adopted, in view of the law declared by the apex court as per the law declared in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) (which in turn has been followed by the Madras Bench of the Tribunal). 5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, the idea and understanding of the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived. It is stated that all the point....