9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals. The appeals relate to various assessment years, commencing from 2001-2002 to 2004-2005 of the same assessee, i.e. M/s.Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. 2. For the said assessment years, the respondent-assessee filed returns. The assessing authority, on examination of the returns, came to the conclusion that there was a short payment of the tax due with reference to each of the assessment years and, therefore, opined that the assessee is bound not only to pay the balance of the tax, but also to pay interest on such delayed payment of tax. 3. Eventually, the matter reached the Tribunal. The Tribunal connected cases directed that - "With regard to levy of interest we direct the assessing authority to follow the dictum la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw of is not a ground for condoning the delay in preferring an appeal or revision. The learned counsel in support of his submission relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab [AIR 1967 SC 1643 1967 Indlaw SC 1493]. The learned counsel relied upon certain passages of the judgment of Chief Justice K.Subba Rao dealing with the prospective overruling of the various Constitutional amendments which were in challenge before the Supreme Court. We are of the opinion that the reliance on the said decision is wholly misconceived in the instant case. 6. The learned counsel also relied on the decision reported in CIT v. Ramachandra Hatcheries [(2008) 305 ITR 117 2007 Indlaw MAD 933 (Mad)]. The matter arose under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Revenue is to challenge the correctness of the decision of the appellate authority before the appropriate higher forum in accordance with law; but not to reopen the assessment on the ground that the view taken by the appellate authority is not consistent with the law declared subsequently either by the High Court or the Supreme Court. 7. We are in respectful agreement with the principle laid down by the Madras High Court. But, we are of the opinion that the said principle has no application in the present case. In the instant case, the Revenue is only following the principle laid down in the said decision by challenging the correctness of the decision of the appellate Tribunal. If the decision of the Full Bench [2010 (1) KL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tched by the building, even non-residential building also, fell within the purview of the Act and consequently eviction was only possible by orders of the Tribunal created under the Act, but not by decrees of civil Court. The question arose as to the fate of the decrees passed by the civil Courts, but were pending consideration in appeal before the declaration of the unconstitutionality of Section 31. Dealing with the said question, the Karnataka High Court at para 18 observed as follows: "A decision rendered by a competent Court becomes final and conclusive when statutory avenues of challenge thereto by way of appeal, revision, review, rectification or otherwise are availed and exhausted, or not availed within the period prescribed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
