TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of India vs UOI. After receiving the applications from the Revenue the same was not numbered and even taken on file. The Tribunal suddenly passed an order dated 18.4.2013 recalling all the earlier orders on its own. The immediate provocation of the Tribunal may be the applications filed by the Revenue to recall its earlier orders. Whatever may be the reason, four years period as provided u/s 254(2) for rectification has expired even on the date of filing of applications by the Revenue. In all fairness, this Tribunal ought to have issued notice to the assessee after taking the applications filed by the Revenue on record. It is unfortunate that the Tribunal has not issued any notice and suddenly passed the order. This Tribunal is of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 - SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, JJ. For The Petitioner : Shri C. Naresh, C.A. For The Respondent : Shri Shaji P. Jacob, Addl. CIT ORDER PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee filed the present miscellaneous petitions to recall the order of this Tribunal dated 18.4.2013. 2. Shri C. Naresh, ld. Representative for the assessee submitted that this Tribunal by orders dated 21.1.2008 and 20.8.2007 dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue on the ground that COD approval was not obtained for prosecuting the appeals before this Tribunal. According to the ld. Representative, the Apex Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Ltd held that for prosecuting the appeal by the De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has no power to pass an order u/s 254(2) of the Act by recalling its earlier order. The ld. Representative has also placed his reliance on the unreported judgment of Kerala High Court in CIT vs State Bank of Travancore in R.P. No.895 of 2010 dated 30.11.2011, the copy of which is filed by the assessee and submitted that the Apex Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd vs Union of India Others [2011] 332 ITR 58 has recalled its earlier order. After judgment of the Apex Court, there is no scope for the COD considering clearance for filing appeal between Public Sector Undertakings or between Government and Public Sector Undertakings. The COD rejected the Revenue s application for permission to file appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2015, the ld. Representative submitted that on identical set of facts, the Madras High Court found that the W.A cannot be restored. According to the ld. Representative, since the assessee was not put on notice before recalling the order, the principles of natural justice was violated. 4. On the contrary, Shri Shaji P. Jacob, Ld. Representative for the Revenue submitted that this Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue on the ground that COD clearance was not obtained for prosecuting the appeals as per the direction of the Apex Court. The Apex Court subsequently found that COD clearance is not required for filing the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal found that its earlier orders dismissing the appeals need to be recalled. Accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the second time, therefore, the second miscellaneous petition is not maintainable. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. We have also carefully gone through the records of this Tribunal. Prima facie, it appears that the Tribunal on its own passed an order after referring to the latter judgment of the Apex Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. recalling its earlier order and restored the appeals on file. We find from the records that the Revenue filed applications on 15.1.2013 praying for the recall of the Tribunal orders on the ground that COD clearance is no longer required in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s Electronics Corporation of Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the miscellaneous petitions, the fact remains that the order was passed by the Tribunal suo motu recalling its earlier orders therefore, for all practical purposes the order is passed without giving any opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there is gross violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, in exercise of the powers of this Tribunal under proviso to Rule 24 and proviso to Rule 25 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, the order of this Tribunal dated 18.4.2013 is recalled and the orders of this Tribunal dated 20.8.2007 and 21.1.2008 are restored. 6. In the cases referred by the Revenue, an opportunity was given to both the parties and Tribunal has passed an elab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
