TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 513
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal (the Tribunal) in respect of Assessment Year 2000-01 and 2001-02. 2. The basic question which arose for consideration before this Court in the two appeals filed by the revenue was: whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal were justified in holding that the issue in respect of claim for deduction under Section 35D of the Act allowed in respect of expenses incurred in connection with private placement of equity shares is amenable to rectification by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in the facts of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue Mr.Chhotaray, in support of the review petitions submits that the present review has been taken out on the following grounds: - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2012. The above submission was considered in paragraph No.7 of the above order holding that it was a matter of opinion depending upon the exact nature of the issue. Moreover the issue was also debatable. Therefore outside the scope of rectification. 5. So far as the second issue is concerned, we find that the review application filed is contrary to the appeal memo filed by the revenue. In the memo of appeal filed by the revenue, in paragraph 4 thereof, verified to the personal knowledge of the person declaring the petition is as under : "Since deduction under Section 35D is available only with respect to share issue expenses incurred in connection with public issue of shares. Thereafter remedial action under Section 263 was proposed by C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Income Tax in the appeal memo filed against the order dated 21 May 2010 of the Tribunal which led to the order dated 15 June 2012 of this Court. We find that the review application seems to have been filed in a most casual manner without having examined the case of the revenue in its memo of appeal which incidentally is the case they came to the Court in respect of the second issue. So far as the first issue is concerned, the grievance now raised in the review petition was a subject matter of consideration on which we took a view in order dated 15 June 2012. If according to the revenue it is not a correct view/opinion, then the remedy is an appeal and not review. 8. In fact, the approach of the revenue in these review petitions is not ....