2012 (9) TMI 1155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n (JM) The taxpayer filed the present miscellaneous application alleging that there is an error in the order of this Tribunal dated 30-12-2011. 2. Shri A.S. Narayanamurthy, the ld.representative for the taxpayer submitted that the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 27-02-2006 allowing deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. Therefore, the Administrative Commissioner should have taken action....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re particularly paragraph 10.2 the ld. representative pointed out that in respect of very same allegation for the assessment year 2002-03 this Tribunal found that the order of the Administrative Commissioner u/s 263 was not warranted since the deduction u/s 80IB was subject matter of assessment at the first instance even before the search. According to the ld.representative, this finding of the Tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 153A would not operate to extend the time limit. Accordingly, it was found that the Commissioner's intervention u/s 263 of the Act was not sustainable in law. For the assessment year 2003-04 the taxpayer has raised the very same issue. However, this Tribunal by mistake omitted to consider the issue of limitation and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merit on the ground that the taxpayer has n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed specially that would not preclude the taxpayer to raise the same before the Tribunal. In fact, for the assessment year 2002-03 a similar ground was raised by the revenue which was considered by this Tribunal at paragraph 10.3 of its order. Referring to Rule 11 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, this Tribunal recorded a finding that it is open to the taxpayer to raise grounds whic....