ACIT, Circle-1, Palakkad V. Palakkad Service Co-op Bank Ltd, Palakkad

MA 101/COCH/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0775 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2020
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial Member MPNos. 100 to 102/Coch/2019 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 569 to 571/Coch/2018) (Assessment Years:2010-11 to 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle – 1, Palakkad vs. Palakkad Service Co-operativeBank Ltd. G.B. Road, Palakkad 679001 [PAN:AAAAP5210A] Applicant Respondent Applicant by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Respondent by: Shri Sivadas Chettoor, CA Date of Hearing: 15.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is a set of three Miscellaneous Petitions by the Revenue directed against the common Order dated 01.03.2019 by the Tribunal under section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) disposing of it’s captioned appeals for 3 consecutive years, being assessment years (AYs.) 2010-11 to 2012-13. 2. The common point raised by the Revenue in the instant petitions is that the order by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, replied upon by the Tribunal in disposing the said appeals, has since been reversed by it’s larger Bench decision in CIT vs. Poonjar Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2019] 414 ITR 67 (FB) (Ker). The impugned order may kindly be recalled for adjudication. 3. We have considered the rival contentions, and perused the material on record. We find the Revenue’s contentions as correct. The Revenue, which has relied for the MP Nos. 100 to 102/Coch/2019 Asst. CIT vs. Palakkad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2 purpose on the decision in Kil Kotagiri Tea & Coffee vs. ITAT [1998] 174 ITR 579 (Ker), has preferred the instant petitions within the statutory period under section 254(2) of the Act. That a decision inconsistent with the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court or Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is ‘mistaken’, liable to be rectified, is trite law, for which reference may be made to, inter alia, Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC); CIT v. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (P&H)(FB)). We accordingly recall the captioned appeals for a decision afresh by the Tribunal on merits in accordance with law after hearing the parties. We are conscious that the decision by the Hon'ble High Court in Mavilayil Service Co- operative Bank (supra) stands since reversed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgement reported at [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC). However, it is again trite law that once a judgment is passed by a court following another judgment and, subsequently, the latter judgment is overruled on a question of law, it cannot have an effect of reopening or reviving the former judgment passed following the overruled judgment nor can the same be reviewed (CIT v. Gracemac Corp. [2023] 456 ITR 135 (SC)). It is thus only in the recalled proceedings that regard to the judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mavilayil Service Co-operative Bank (supra) could be given. We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, the MPs filed by the Revenue are allowed. Order pronounced on October 16, 2023 in the open court at the end of the hearing. Sd/- Sd/- (Manomohan Das) (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Cochin, Dated: October 16, 2023 n.p. MP Nos. 100 to 102/Coch/2019 Asst. CIT vs. Palakkad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. 3 Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin