Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (7) TMI 673

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 254(2) of the Act - I.T.T.A.No.246 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 4-11-2015 - SRI RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND SRI M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : DWARAKANATH JUDGMENT : (per Hon ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) This Appeal, under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ), is preferred against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in M.A.No.126/Hyd/2014 in I.T.A.No.1364/H/2013 dated 10.12.2014. M.A.No.126/Hyd/2014 was filed by the assessee seeking rectification of the mistake which had allegedly crept in the order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.1364/H/2013 for the assessment year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer, while assessing the appellant under the Act, held .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are applicable to the Bank although the appellant Bank being a subsidiary of SBI neither is required to hold Annual General Meeting nor adopt its accounts which is mandatory as per the provision of Section 115JB of the Act, 1961. The Tribunal recorded that, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee did not press for these grounds and these grounds were, accordingly, rejected as not pressed. As is evident from the order of the Tribunal, ground No.6 related to the applicability of Section 115JB of the Act to the Bank and, as this ground was not pressed, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in this regard attained finality. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Tr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lenged this issue on an earlier occasion before the Tribunal, and had stated that they did not want to press this ground; after hearing both the parties, the Tribunal had dismissed the ground raised by the assessee as not pressed; this meant that the Tribunal had adjudicated the ground; thereafter the Assessing Officer had passed the impugned consequential order, which was in consonance with the earlier order of the Tribunal; the assessee s counsel wanted to re-argue the case, which was not permissible unless and until the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 19.03.2010 was disturbed by any process of law; the assessee was not at liberty to challenge the finding of the Tribunal in the second round of litigation by rearguing the issue, which .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act, and to make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer. The jurisdiction, which the Tribunal is empowered to exercise under Section 254(2) of the Act, is only to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. The application in M.A.No.126/Hyd/2014 was filed, under Section 254(2) of the Act, seeking rectification of a mistake in the order in I.T.A.No.1364/H/2013. Sri S.Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that it is only because approval from the Committee of Disputes was not obtained that the appellant herein had not pressed for an adjudication of the question regarding applicability of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act; they obtained approval of the Comm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unds of appeal that they were not pressing for this ground, as they had not obtained approval of the Committee of Disputes, that may possibly justify their making an application under Section 254(2) of the Act in I.T.A.No.681 of 2008. Having failed to do so, and having permitted I.T.A.No.681 of 2008 dated 19.03.2010 to attain finality, the appellant cannot now be heard to contend that this question should have been re-examined by the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.1364/H/2013. As has been rightly held by the Tribunal, such a request would mean that the Tribunal, while examining I.T.A.No.1364/H/2013, could examine the validity of the order passed in I.T.A.No.681 of 2008 dated 19.03.2010. The Tribunal, in its order in I.T.A.No.1364/H/2013 dated 05.0 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates