Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1653 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
11 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
07-02-2014
Appeal Filed By
Department
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
misc
Appeal Filed On
26-02-2013
Judgement Text
, B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , /AND . . . . ' '' ''# '#'# '#, $% ) [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, AM] $& $& $& $& ' ' ' ' /M. A. NO. 12/KOL/2013 IN ' ' ' ' /IN I.T.A NO. 1949/KOL/2010 &( )* &( )* &( )* &( )*/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VS. KARABI DASGUPTA CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA. (PAN:ACNPD9441K) ( $ /APPLICANT ) (,-.// RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 07.02.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07.02.2014 $ 0 1 $ /FOR THE APPLICANT: SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD, JCIT, SR . DR ,-./ 0 1 $ /FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI B. CHAKRABORTY, CA $2 / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM/ , : THROUGH THIS MISC. APPLICATION REVENUE HAS RAISED F OLLOWING ISSUES: A) THAT THE FINDING OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THA T THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME OF SAIL AND REQUIREMENT S LAID DOWN UNDER RULE 2BA IS VALID ONLY FOR THAT CASE. B) THAT THE CASE LAW SAIL DSP VR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIAT ION 1998 VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (262 ITR 638) DOES NOT DECLARE RULE 2BA A NU LLITY OR INSIGNIFICANT IN ANY MANNER. C) THAT RULE 2BA AND THE SIX (6) REQUIREMENTS-CONTA INED IN CLAUSE (I) TO CLAUSE (VI)-, THEREFORE, REMAINS VERY MUCH RELEVANT AND THEIR FUL FILLMENT IS NECESSARY FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10(10C). THE PETITIONER PRAYS: A) THAT THE CASE LAW SAIL DSP VR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 1998 VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (262 ITR 638) IS AMPLY DISTINGUISHABLE AND, THEREFORE, THE FINDING THAT THIS CASE LAW IS BINDING IN THESE CASES MAY KINDLY BE RE CONSIDERED. B) THAT THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE RELIEF TO THRE APPELLANT ASSESSEES MAY KINDLY BE REVISITED IN THE LIGHT OF PRAYER MAD E IN SUB-PARA (A) ABOVE. 2. WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT WHAT IS THE MISTAKE IN T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS 2 MA NO. 12/K/2013 KARABI DASGUPTA A. Y 2003-04 APPARENT FROM RECORD, THE REVENUE WANTED TO ARGUE T HE MATTER AFRESH. FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SAME IS DECIDED RELYI NG ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAIL DSP VR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 1998 VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (262 ITR 638). AS THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND NOW REVENUE WANTS TO REAGITATE THE ENTIRE ISSUE AFRESH, WE CANNOT ENTERTAIN THIS M ISC. APPLICATION AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES MISC. APPLICATION S TANDS DISMISSED. 4. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT . SD/- SD/- . . . . ' '' ''# '#'# '# , $% , (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( 3% 3% 3% 3%) )) ) DATED : 7 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 45 &6' 7 JD.(SR.P.S.) $2 0 , 8$ )9- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . $ /APPLICANT ACIT, CIR-22, KOLKATA. 2 ,-./ / RESPONDENT SMT. KARABI DASGUPTA, 1/144, NAKTALA , KOLKATA-700 047. 3 . 2& ( )/ THE CIT(A) , KOLKATA 4. 2& CIT, KOLKATA 5 . ?@ ,& / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA - ,/ TRUE COPY, $2&A/ BY ORDER, ' /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .
