ADIT (E) 1(1), V. THE MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

MA 190/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9149 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAILESH B SHETHIA

Judgement Text

MA RECALL 190 OF 2012 MAHADA MUMBAI PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 190/MUM/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 2255/MUM/2008) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), ROOM NO.504 5 TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI 400002 VS. THE MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MAHADA), GRIHA NIRMAL BHAVAN, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 400051 PAN: AAAJM 0344H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI N.K. MEHTA, DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI SHAILESH B. SHETHIA DATE OF HEARING: 28/09/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28/09/2012 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY AO SEEKING T HE RESTORATION OF THE APPEAL DISMISSED FOR WANT OF COD VIDE THE ORDER DATED 22-05-2009 PASSED EX-PARTE IN ITA NO. 2255/MUM/2008. 2. WHILE DISMISSING THE REVENUE APPEAL IT WAS SPECI FICALLY STATED THAT REVENUE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO MOVE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS AND WHEN PERMISSION WAS OBTAINED FROM COD. NOW CONSEQUENT TO THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ORDERS ON THE ISSUE COD PERMISSION WA S DISPENSED WITH. 3. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF AO THAT THE HON'BLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHIVSHAHI PUNARVASAN PARAKALP LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA IN W.P. NO.2270 OF 2009 HAS HELD THAT COD APPROVAL IS NOT NECESSARY WHICH RELATES TO THE ADJUDICATION OF A DI SPUTE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT WAS T HE PRAYER FOR RESTORATION OF APPEAL TO BE CONSIDERED ON MERIT. TH E LEARNED MA RECALL 190 OF 2012 MAHADA MUMBAI PAGE 2 OF 2 COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS NO OBJECTION AS ASSESSEE W AS ALSO SEEKING RESTORATION OF THEIR APPEAL ON SIMILAR REASON. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND RES PECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF SHIVSHAHI PUNARVASAN PARAKALP LTD VS. UNION OF I NDIA IN W.P. NO.2270 OF 2009, WE HEREBY RECALL THE ABOVE ORDER D ATED 22-05- 2009 TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON MERITS. THE CASE IS POSTED FOR HEARING ON MERITS ON 07.01.2013 AND AS BOTH THE PAR TIES WERE INFORMED IN THE OPEN COURT, NO SEPARATE NOTICE WILL BE ISSUED IN THIS REGARD. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. THE DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IMMEDIAT ELY ON CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 28/09/2012. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. VNODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI