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

....Bindhu ORDER Per N.R.S. Ganesan (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 Administrativ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unal for the assessment year 2002-03 more 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tance. Therefore, the provisions of section 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., merely because such a ground was not raised 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....