2018 (3) TMI 1730

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this common order. Both the parties mainly argued in AY 2009-10. 2. We have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the material available on record. For the purpose of disposal of both the appeals, we decide the appeal for AY 2009-10 as under:- ITA No.5344/Del/2016 [A.Y.2009-10] 3. The facts of the case are that the AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act") on 20.10.2011 making addition of Rs. 10,84,889/- [Rs.1,76,583/- + Rs. 9,08,306/-] by making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii)(iii) of the Act. The assessee challenged the addition before Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition subject to certain modification/finding vide order dated 27.08.2013.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A) after considering the rectification application u/s 154 of the Act and material on record and by reproducing the facts noted that the letter of the assessee was filed before Ld. CIT(A) prior to passing of the order and after verification only impugned order have been passed, therefore, present application would amount to review of the order which power Ld.CIT(A) did not possess. He has noted certain decisions that Ld.CIT(A) has no power to review the orders passed on merits. It was also noted that the issue raised by the assessee debatable and no rectification of Ld.CIT(A)'s order is legally or factually permissible. The appeal of the assessee against the rectification application u/s 154 was rejected. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he case of ACIT vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.(supra) in which it was held that "A judicial decision acts retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of the Court to pronounce a 'new rule' but to maintain and expound the 'old one'. In other words, Judges do not make law, they only discover or find the correct law. The law has always been the same. If a subsequent decision alters the earlier one, it (the later decision) does not make new law. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. To put it differently, even where an earlier decision of the Court operated for quite some time, the decision rendered later on would have retrospective effect clarifying the le....