Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Commissioner of Income Tax 5, Mumbai Versus M/s Air India Ltd, Mumbai

2016 (5) TMI 288 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Application of Section 254(2) - Whether he Tribunal has erred in dismissing the M.As filed by the Department? - Held that:- Inapplicability of Section 254(2) of the Act to the application for recall and the applicability of Rule 12 of ITAT Rules to such an application was not an issue urged by the Revenue before the Tribunal, thus not considered by the Tribunal. We specifically asked Mr. Tejveer Singh, whether the issue being urged before us was raised before the Tribunal and he answered in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

B. P. Colabawalla, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Tejveer Singh For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Patil ORDER P. C. 1. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 8th February, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2000-01. 2. This appeal raises the following questions of law for our consideration : (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 1963 r.w.s. 255(5) and not an order as contemplated u/s 254(1) and therefore the limitation u/s 254(2) is not applicable to the said order? 3. The Respondent-Assessee is a public sector undertaking. The Appellant-Revenue had on 16th February, 2002 preferred an appeal to the Tribunal for the Assessment year 2000-01 from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). The Tribunal by its order dated 6th November, 2007 dismissed the Appellant-Revenue's appeal as it had not obtained appr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion of India Ltd. v/s. UOI 332 ITR 58 held that the approval of COD is no longer required to prosecute a dispute amongst the departments of the Government and Public Sector undertakings inter se. 5. Consequent to the above, in 2012 the Appellant-Revenue filed a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal for recall of the order dated 6th November, 2007 dismissing its appeal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 8th February, 2013 dismissed the application for recall of the order dated 6th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s, it is the case of Revenue that no period of limitation much less the period of limitation of four years as provided in Section 254(2) of the Act applies. 7. Before dealing with the grievance of the Appellant-Revenue, it must be pointed out that it is an agreed position between the parties that the issues arising herein stand covered against the Revenue and in favour of the Respondent-Assessee by the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.11580 of 2013 (CIT v/s. Central Bank OF India), ren .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

made any application to obtain approval of the COD before it filed its appeal for A.Y. 1996-98 to the Tribunal. This inspite of the COD mechanism being very much in force at that time. The recall of its earlier orders in respect of ONGC by the Supreme Court in the case of ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD only does away with the practice in view of the changed circumstances. The necessity of obtaining approval from COD which was in practice at the relevant time cannot be done away with on the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ellant-Revenue. 8. Before dealing with the grievance of the Revenue, it may be necessary to reproduce Rule 12 of the ITAT Rules which reads as under:- R. 12. Rejection or amendment of memorandum of appeal - The Tribunal may reject a memorandum of appeal, if it is not in the prescribed form or return it for being amended within such time as it may allow. On representation after such amendment, the memorandum shall be signed and dated by the officer competent to make an endorsement under rule 7. R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is only after the memorandum of appeal is put in the prescribed form, that it has to be represented for acceptance under Rule 7 of the ITAT Rules. In this case, we specifically asked Mr. Tejveer Singh, whether the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal was not in accordance with the prescribed form and he informed us that it was in the prescribed form. Therefore, on the aforesaid facts, no occasion to exercise powers under Rule 12 of the ITAT Rules can arise for either the rejection or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

um of appeal is not in the prescribed form. Admittedly in this case the memorandum of appeal is in the prescribed form. Therefore the appeal filed by the Revenue itself was listed for hearing on 6 November 2007 before a division Bench of the Tribunal leading to an order of even date under Section 254(1) of the Act. This order dated 6 November, 2007 is an appealable order under Section 260A of the Act. 11. One more aspect which can not be lost sight of is that whenever an memorandum of appeal is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sentation after amending the memorandum of appeal would not be excluded while computing the period of limitation as provided under the Act for the purposes of filing an appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore if the order dated 6 November 2007 was an order under Rule 12 of the ITAT Rules then not only there ought to have been a representation of the appeal on the part of the Appellant Revenue but also an explanation for the period of the delay while computing the period of limitation for filing of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der Rule12 of the ITAT Rules. This could never be the objective as it would result not only in stale issues being reactivated and disrupting finality acquired to quasi judicial orders by passage of time. Consequently, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 8 February 2013 of the Tribunal rejecting the application for recall of the Order dated 6 November 2007 as being time barred. 12. The reliance by the Appellant-Revenue upon the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Dy. CI .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the present facts. Order 41 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code is similar to Rule 12 of the ITAT Rules and it has been adverted to by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, yet as pointed out above the same has not been invoked in this case while passing the order dated 6 November 2007 dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. It may be pointed out that in the present facts the appeal was rejected by the order dated 6 November 2007 and not the memorandum of appeal as was the basis of the decision of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version