TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....G. Sanghani for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Ketan Shah for the respondent. 2. By these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the common order dated 01.02.2021 in Miscellaneous Application No. 37 to 43 of 2020 arising out of the ITA No. 497 of 2020 to 503 of 2020 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 to Assessment Year 2005-06 in case of the respondent assessee passed by the Income Appellate Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1. In this case, survey action u/s. 133A of the Act was carried out in premises of Shri Pankaj Danawala CA and in the premises of MD Industries by the DDIT (Inv) II, S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 07.08.2009 involving 9 out of 20 applicants remanded the matter back to the Settlement Commission for fresh consideration. 3.5. Thereafter the report under Rule 9 of the Settlement Commissioner Rules was submitted by the CIT(Appeal) before the Settlement Commission and the assessee raised objections to the said report vide submissions dated 10.09.2018 which was forwarded by the Settlement Commission to the Principal CIT(1), Surat. The Principal CIT(1), Surat, vide letter dated 18.10.2018 submitted comments on the submission of the assessee and thereafter several hearing were conducted before the Settlement Commission in the proceeding under Section 245D(4) of the Act. The assessee thereafter filed an appeal before the ITAT challengin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....01.2021 dismissed all the Miscellaneous applications. Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred these petitions. 4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sanghani for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has committed a mistake apparent on record by not applying provision of Section 245(F)(2) of the Act as the matters of the respondent assessee are pending before the Settlement Commission and therefore the Tribunal could not have remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeal). It was submitted that the Tribunal also could not have followed the decision in case of ITA Nos. 1635 to 1638 and 1655 in case of the group concerned, to condone the delay of more than 4000 days. 4.1. It was also submitted by learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....22/AHD/2016 and 678/AHD/2015 and other group cases which were also restored by the Tribunal to the file of LD. CIT(A), hence, the Tribunal in the present case has made no mistake, much less apparent mistake while following the order of the Tribunal in group cases. The revenue has not filed application to recall the order in Kirit M. Patel bearing no. 1639, 1821 and 1822/AHD/2016 and 678/AHD/2015 dated 29.05.2018. Thus, the grievance of the revenue as raised in objection no. (iii) is also misplaced. 21. At the time of making submission the Id. DR for the revenue made reliance on the decision of Cochin Tribunal in JC Augustine (supra), wherein it was held that if the matter abates ITSC, the erstwhile jurisdiction of the CIT(A) gets revived....