2021 (10) TMI 920

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the parties. Perused the Interim Application No. 2406 of 2020 filed in Review Petition (L) No. 24 of 2020 and the Interim Application No. 2407 of 2020 filed in Review Petition (L) No. 25 of 2020. For the reasons set out therein, the delay of 130 days in filing both the Review Petitions is condoned. In view thereof, Interim Application Nos. 2406 of 2020 and 2407 of 2020 stand disposed off. 2. Both the Review Petitions are taken up for hearing by consent of the parties. Review Petitioners seek to set aside / modify the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2471 of 2019 along with Writ Petition No. 2477 of 2019. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners and the learned counsel appeari....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that reproduction of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 4.2 pertaining to the grounds in the Misc. Application were not reproduced and instead the grounds in the Appeal were repeated, however, this cannot be a ground for review as it does not materially affect the order dated 31.01.2020. 7. In order to leave no doubt and ambiguity with respect to the reasons given by us in our order dated 31.01.2020 for dismissing the Writ Petitions, we now reproduce the grounds in the Appeal and the Misc. Application juxtaposed with each other in order to justify dismissal of the Writ Petitions which read thus:- Sr.No. Grounds in the Appeal Sr. No. Grounds in Misc. Application 1 The CIT(A) is not justified in confirming or reducing the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in confirming the rejection of audited book results without going into the background facts and compelling circumstances to save other's skin in the proceedings before the Settlement Commission. 4 On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. AO had erred in accepting some averments made in the affidavit by a director and disregarding some other averments by a director Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 8. From the above, it can be seen that the principal Ground Nos. 1 and 2 in the Appeal are identical to Ground Nos. 1 and 2 in the Misc. Application. Ground No. 3 in the Appeal is the same as Ground Nos. 1 and 2 in the Appeal. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 in the Misc. Application are narration of Ground Nos. 1 ....