2020 (1) TMI 991

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... against the order of the Tribunal, dated 08/02/2017 in ITA No's. 750 to 753/Mum/2014 for AY's 2005-06 to 2008- 09. 2. The assessee has narrated facts and mistakes stated to be apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal, dated 08/02/2017 and the contents of miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee for all four years is more or less identical. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, the contents of miscellaneous applications filed for AY 2005-06 in M.A. NO. 202/Mum/2017 are reproduced as under:- The above mentioned appeals were disposed off by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Bench "B" vide order dated 08-02-2017. The Appellant is moving this application before the Hon'ble ITAT "B" Bench Mumbai as certain mi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt filed a letter requesting for an adjournment of the matter on the grounds that the Appellant had filed an appeal against the rejection the AQ's order against the application made u/s 154 on 31st March 2015 to CIT (A) - 50 raising certain legal issues on the quantum and the matter was pending before the CIT (A)- 50 The ITAT adjourned the matter for AY 2005-06 Matter fixed on 13-07-2016 07-07-2016 & 13-07-2016 The appellant filed a letter requesting the matter adjourned as the CIT (A) 50 had still not disposed off the appeal filed on the quantum. The ITAT adjourned the matter which was fixed for hearing on for all the AY i,e. For AY 2005-06 Matter fixed on 24-08-2016 22-08-2016 & 24-08 2016 The appellant filed a lette....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unal to exercise its powers of rectification under section 254(2) to recall its order in entirety: 1} Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs CIT - 295 1TR 466 (SC) order dated 26-11-2007. 2) Lachman Dass Bhatia Hingwaila (P) Ltd v AC1T (2011) 330 1TR 243 (Delhi) The Appellant submit that the Hon'ble ITAT should have considered our adjournment application which was available on record before confirming the penalty order pending the disposable of the quantum order and should have considered the Additional grounds of appeal which the appellant had filed before ITAT on 2505-2015 and therefore the disposal of the penalty order when quantum, is pending would constitute a mistake apparent from record which has crept into the o....