2012 (6) TMI 847

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for A.Y.2004-05. The facts of the case are that the Revenue filed the appeal against the order of CIT(A)-V, Baroda, dated 03.12.2008 in which six grounds of appeal were raised by the Revenue. All the grounds were considered by the Bench in above dated order, however, the assessee has filed Miscellaneous Application No.58/A/2012, the assessee has raised following grounds:- " 1. 'D' Bench of the Tribunal disposed off the above appeal by their order dated 02.03.2012 (EXHIBIT-A). The following apparent error is there in the order: (i) On ground no.3, the direct Supreme Court decision in T.R.F. Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC) was cited. This has not been considered with the result, an apparent error has come....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd post-April, 1989: "Pre-April 1, 1989: 36. Other deduction.-(1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28- … (vii) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of any debt, or part thereof, which is established to have become a bad debt in the previous year. Post-April 1, 1989: 36. Other deductions.-(1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28- … (vii) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ccount and beyond this nothing is required as per latest legal position on this issue. Therefore, he prayed to re-consider the above judgment. Another side, the ld. D.R. has vehemently drawn our attention on paragraph no.12 on page no.7 of above order that the assessee has shown closing balance of ₹ 25,00,000/- even after written of an amount of ₹ 1,07,67,742/-. In the subsequent year, the "GCPTCL" had paid approximately ₹ 65 lakhs to the assessee and also debited a sum of ₹ 40 lakhs in financial year 2004-05 in the accounts of the "GCPTCL" and claimed that the decision delivered by the Hon'ble 'A' Bench is in the right prospectus. Therefore, M.A. is not maintainable. 4. We have perused our order dated 02.03.2012 i....