M/s. Tamil Nadu Text Book Corporation, CHENNAI V. DIT, CHENNAI

MA 186/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0360 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T M THIRUMAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH C CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER) M.A. NO. 186/MDS/2010 (IN I.T.A. NO. 2493/MDS/2007) M/S TAMIL NADU TEXT BOOK CORPORATION, COLLEGE ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 006. PAN : AAATT0438P (APPLICANT) V. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI - 600 034. (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: SHRI T.M. THIRUMAL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ITS SUB MISSION IS THAT IT HAS RECEIVED PERMISSION FROM COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES FOR PURSUING THE ISSUES RAISED VIDE ITS APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 249 3/MDS/2007. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY AN ORDER DATED 16.3.2009 BY THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE REASON THA T COD APPROVAL WAS NOT OBTAINED. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARLIER FILED A MISCELLANEOUS PETI TION NUMBERED AS M.A. NO. 186/MDS/10 2 338/MDS/2009 WHEREIN IT HAD BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE O F THIS TRIBUNAL THAT THE COD HAD INFORMED IT REGARDING ITS JURISDIC TION BEING LIMITED TO THE DISPUTES BETWEEN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OWNED PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS. THOUG H THIS PETITION WAS DISMISSED, AGAIN FOR WANT OF APPROVAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NOW NECESSARY APPROVAL HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY IT. 2. PER CONTRA, LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS AN M.P. FILED ON ON AN M.P. AND THOUGH IT WAS A MATTER CONCERNING CO D APPROVAL, AS PER THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF DR. S. PANNEERSELVAM V. ACIT (2009) 319 ITR 135 (MAD), SUCH AN M.P. CANNOT BE ALLOWED. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL C ONTENTIONS. NO DOUBT, ORIGINAL APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMI SSED FOR WANT OF COD. ASSESSEE FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION SU BMITTING THAT NO COD APPROVAL WAS NECESSARY SINCE COD HAD INTIMATED THAT ITS POWERS WERE LIMITED TO DISPUTES BETWEEN CENTRAL GOV ERNMENT AND CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OWNED PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS . NEVERTHELESS, THIS TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT WITHOUT A N APPROVAL OF M.A. NO. 186/MDS/10 3 COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES, THE ORDER CANNOT BE RECALLED . AT PARA 4 OF ITS ORDER DATED 11.2.2010 IN M.P. NO. 338/MDS/2009, THI S TRIBUNAL UNEQUIVOCALLY HELD THAT THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE REC ALLED UNLESS AND UNTIL COD APPROVAL WAS OBTAINED. 4. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED APPROVAL OF COMMI TTEE ON DISPUTES WHICH IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 12.8.2010 ALL OWED THE ASSESSEE TO PURSUE AN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THOUGH HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. S. PAN NEERSELVAM (SUPRA) HAD HELD THAT AN ORDER IN AN M.P. RESULTED IN THE M ERGER OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER WITH THAT M.P. AND THERE CANNOT BE FURTHER MI SCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE SAME ISSUE, HERE, WE FIND THAT THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOW FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN ONLY BE C ONSIDERED AS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ARISING OUT OF THE ORIGIN AL APPEAL. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT IN THE DECISION DATED 16.3.2009 IN THE ORIGINAL APPEAL AS WELL AS IN THE ORDER DATED 11.2.2010 IN T HE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION EARLIER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUN AL HAD UNEQUIVOCALLY HELD THAT THE ORDERS COULD BE RECALLED IF THE APPRO VAL OF COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES WAS OBTAINED. SINCE SUCH AN APPROVAL HAS NOW BEEN OBTAINED, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 2493/MDS/2007. THE SAID APPEAL IS RECAL LED AND THE M.A. NO. 186/MDS/10 4 REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 7.3.2011. SINCE THE DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE OPEN C OURT, NO SEPARATE NOTICE NEED BE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER CHENNAI. DATED THE 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPLICANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) (4) CIT (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE