The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs M/S. Vegetables Products Ltd on 29 January, 1973
5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that, the idea and understanding of the
petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived. It is stated that, all
the points raised from the part of the assessee have been
W.P.(C) Nos.28582 & 28583 of 2014 4
considered as discernible from Ext.P2 order itself. The benefit of
amendment watering down the rigour of Section 40a(ia)
appeared in the statute book only by virtue of the amendment
brought about with effect from 01.04.2013. The scope of the said
provision has already been considered by the Division Bench of
this Court as per the decision reported in Prudential Logistics
and Transports (2014 (364) ITR 689. It has been
categorically held by the Bench in the said decision, that the
amendment brought about with effect from 01.04.2013 cannot
come to the rescue of the assessee in respect of the assessment
of the previous years. It is also pointed out that, the said decision
rendered by this Court has been referred to by the 2nd
respondent/Tribunal in Ext.P2 order. The Tribunal being bound by
the verdict passed by the jurisdictional High Court, there is no
error apparent on the face of the record. It is also pointed out
that, the petition preferred by way of Ext.P3, stating that there is
an error apparent on the face of the record, it is not labile to be
entertained, as there is no error apparent on the face of the
record at all. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the
W.P.(C) Nos.28582 & 28583 of 2014 5
petitioner is still having a remedy by way of appeal, as provided
under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, if any substantial
question of law is involved.