Jagannath Construction V. Union of India

ITA/32/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Jagannath Construction, the appellant, contesting an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack, which pertained to the assessment year 2012-13. The core issue revolved around the Tribunal's authority to recall and restore an appeal, which had been previously decided. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's subsequent restoration of the appeal was not permissible under the law as established by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. The respondents, representing the Union of India, contended that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dismissed the appeal, affirming that the issue had been adequately addressed in the appellant's earlier unsuccessful writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 800134 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1170
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTY; A KEDIA
• Assessee Lawyers: JAGAMOHAN PATTANAIK
• Keywords: Income Tax; Recall and Restoration; Restoration of appeal; Substantial question of law
• Section: 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No.32 of 2024 M/s. Jagannath Construction, Rayagada …. Appellant -versus- Union of India and others …. Respondents Learned advocates appeared in the case: For Appellant : Mr. Jagamohan Pattanaik, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. S.C. Mohanty, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. A. Kedia, Jr. Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO J U D G M E N T -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing and judgment: 18th December, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARINDAM SINHA, J. 1. Mr. Pattanaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant- assessee. He submits, substantial questions of law arises for admission of the appeal against order dated 13th August, 2024 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in ITA no.147/CTK/2016 pertaining to assessment year 2012-13. He submits, the question arising in respect of section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 was already decided 2 of 3 ITA no.32 of 2024 by the Tribunal on order dated 25th April, 2017. Subsequent thereto, the Tribunal by order dated 24th June, 2022 recalled the order and restored the appeal. The Tribunal could not have done so in face of law declared by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. available at (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1170. His client had moved this Court by W.P.(C) no.18745 of 2022 dealt with by coordinate Bench on order dated 24th June, 2024. There was no interference prompting the Tribunal to revisit the case upon restoration of it, by itself. This is not possible in law. 2. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and submits, no question of law, let alone substantial question of law arises from impugned order of the Tribunal. The appeal be dismissed. 3. A substantial question of law must arise from order of the Tribunal for an appeal to be admitted. Here, appellant is not urging nor suggesting any question of law regarding merits of the adjudication made in impugned order. The contention is, the Tribunal could not adjudicate on restoration. However, the restoration had already happened. Petitioner thereafter chose to move the writ Court and was unsuccessful. Subsequent thereto the Tribunal passed impugned order upon adjudication of the case before it, albeit, pursuant to restoration by itself. 3 of 3 ITA no.32 of 2024 4. This appears to be a case where petitioner relies on law declared by the Supreme Court to contend that the Tribunal could not have restored. This point was, as aforesaid, agitated by it in the writ petition. Petitioner did not seek to challenge said order dated 24th June, 2024 made by the Division Bench not interfering with the restoration. In the circumstances, the restoration was not interfered with by this Court exercising writ jurisdiction. 5. Mr. Pattanaik submits, this point regarding the Tribunal not having power to recall and restore was raised before the Tribunal and dealt with in impugned order. As such a substantial question arises on the point. We reiterate, the contention was agitated by appellant before the writ Court unsuccessfully. No further step had been taken by appellant to challenge said order dated 24th June, 2024. After that it could no longer be a point for adjudication by the Tribunal, when its jurisdictional High Court had not interfered with its earlier order of recall and restoration. 6. In view of aforesaid, no substantial question of law arises for admission of appeal. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (Arindam Sinha) Judge (M.S. Sahoo) Judge Radha/Jyostna Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 19-Dec-2024 11:30:26 Signature Not Verified "