Yanam Market Committee, Yanam V. ITO, Kakinada

MA 1/VIZ/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1743 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KOMALI KRISHNA
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

MP NO.1/VIZAG/2014 OUT OF ITA 56/V/2009 YANAM MARKET COMMITTEE, YANAM IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MP NO.1/VIZAG/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.56/VIZAG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 YANAM MARKET COMMITTEE YANAM VS. ITO WARD-2 KAKINADA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AAAAY 0666M ASSESSEE BY: SHRI D.L. NARASIMHA RAO, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY: SMT. KOMALI KRISHNA, ADDL.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 04.03.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.03.2014 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION THE ASSESSEE SEEKS R ECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.56/VIZAG/2009 PER TAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF TH E LD. A.R. THAT WHILE DECIDING ASSESSEES APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEES INCOME WOULD BE WHOLLY EXEMPT B Y VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 10(26AAB) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT. WHILE DOING SO, THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ADJUDICATE UPON THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL, THE DEPARTMENT CARRIED AN APPEAL TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDH RA PRADESH. THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, IN THE AFORESAID CONTEXT, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD . A.R. THAT SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE, THOSE GROUNDS ARE REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD. THIS IS THE SECOND MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE A SSESSEE. IN NORMAL COURSE MP NO.1/VIZAG/2014 OUT OF ITA 56/V/2009 YANAM MARKET COMMITTEE, YANAM 2 SECOND MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE SAME ISSUE WOU LD NOT HAVE BEEN MAINTAINABLE. HOWEVER, THE EARLIER MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION REGISTERED AS MA NO.70/VIZAG/2012 WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 2.11.2012 WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: WE NOTICE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED A CONSOLIDA TED ORDER IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.53 TO 56/VIZAG/2009 BY ADJUDICATING A COMMON LEGAL ISSUE. HOWEVER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 7 .3.2012 PASSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, WHICH APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN DOWN LOADED FROM SOME INTERNET SITE, PERT AINING TO ITTA NO.509 OF 2011 PASSED IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, YANAM. THOUGH, THE LEARNED A.R. CLAIMS THAT THE SAID ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT RELATES TO THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.56/VIZAG/2012, YET HE COULD NOT CORRELATE BOTH T HE ORDERS. FURTHER HE COULD NOT GIVE CONVINCING REPLY TO THE Q UESTION, VIZ., WHY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MOVED PETITIONS TO RECALL THE ORDER IN RESPECT OF OTHER YEARS PASSED IN THE IMPUGNED COMMO N ORDER. 3. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISMISSING THE EARLIER MA OF THE ASSESSEE, THE MA W AS DISMISSED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CORRELATE THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS ORDER RELATES TO THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.56/VIZAG/2012. THE TRIBUNAL FUR THER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE CONVINCING REPLY AS TO WHY IT HAS NOT MOVED PETITION TO RECALL THE ORDER IN RESPECT OF OTHER YEARS. HOW EVER, IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN ITTA NO.509 OF 2011 HAS IN FACT REVERSED THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2009 PASSED IN ITA N O.56/VIZAG/2009 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, A COPY O F THE ORDER HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. SO FAR AS THE SECOND ISSUE REGAR DING NON-FILING OF MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS IN RESPECT OF OTHER YEARS, THE LD. A.R. HAS CONTENDED THAT SINCE THERE IS NO TAX EFFECT IN THOSE ASSESSME NT YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED ANY MISCELLANEOUS PETITION. IT HAS AL SO TO BE NOTED HERE THAT IN ALL OTHER SIMILAR CASES, THE TRIBUNAL RECALLED ITS EARLIER ORDER FOR ADJUDICATING ON THE GROUNDS WHICH WERE LEFT UNDECIDED. CONSIDER ING THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SIMILAR ORDER ALSO NEEDS TO BE PASSED IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE RECA LL THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.56/VIZAG/2012 FOR ADJUD ICATING ON THE GROUNDS MP NO.1/VIZAG/2014 OUT OF ITA 56/V/2009 YANAM MARKET COMMITTEE, YANAM 3 WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DECIDED EARLIER. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THIS APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION ON ISSUE RAISED ON MERITS. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH MAR14 SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 4 TH MARCH, 2014 COPY TO 1 YANAM MARKET COMMITTEE, YANAM 2 ITO WARD-2, KAKINADA 3 THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY 4 THE CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM