DENA BANK, V. ADDL. CIT. - 2(3),

MA 203/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7563 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARTHSARTHI NAIK

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCONTANT MEMBER MA NOS.202 AND 203/MUM/2011 ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 3608 & 3609/M/2006, A.YS. 2 001-02 & 2002-03 M/S. DENA BANK, DENA BANKING BUILDING, 2 ND FLOOR, 17-B, HORNIMAN CIRCLE, FORT, MUMBAI -400 023. ....... APPLICANT VS ADDL. CIT-1(3)/ACIT 2(3), ROOM NO.557, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI -400 020 ..... RESPONDENT PAN: AAACD 4249 B APPLICANT BY: SHRI S. ANANTHAN RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PARTHSARTHI NAIK DATE OF HEARING: 16.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: ..01.2012 O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM: THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT WITH A PRAYER TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.YS. 2001-02 & 2002-03 BEING ITA NOS. 3608 & 3609/M/2006 DATED 21.01.2011 SATING THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. T HAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED GROUND NOS.3 & 4 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSE E IN ITS APPEAL FOR THE A.YS. 2001-02 AND 2002-03 ON THE REASON THA T THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET THE CLEARANCE FROM THE COMMITTEE ON D ISPUTES (COD) IN MAS 202 & 203/MUM/2011 M/S. DENA BANK 2 RESPECT OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT WHEN THE MATTER WAS HEARD, THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT FOR OBTAI NING COD CLEARANCE. IT IS, FURTHER, STATED THAT IN THE RECE NT JUDGMENT BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ELECTRONIC CORPORA TION OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 332 ITR 58 (SC,) THE EARL IER DIRECTIONS FOR GETTING COD CLEARANCE BEFORE FILING APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL ARE RECALLED AND HENCE, THERE IS NO ANY MORE REQUIREMEN T FOR GETTING CLEARANCE FROM THE COD FOR FILING APPEAL IN HONBLE TRIBUNAL. 2. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED RECOR DS. THE ASSESSEES APPEALS BEING ITA NOS.3608 & 3609/M/2006 WERE DISPOSED OFF BY THE COMMON ORDER DATED 21.01.2.011. 3. IN BOTH THE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET C OD APPROVAL FOR TAKING GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 AND THE SAME WERE DISMISSE D FOR THE WANT OF THE COD. IN THE CASE OF ELECTRONIC CORPORATION OF INDIA ( SUPRA ), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE EARLIER THE JUDGMENTS ON THE POINT INCLUDING ONGC VS. CCE (1992) 104 CTR (SC) 31 , THERE WAS REQUIREMENT FOR GETTING THE CLEARANCE FROM THE COD AS A PRE-CONDITION TO PROSECUTE THE APPEALS, HAVE OUTLIVED THEIR UTILI TY IN THE CHANGE SCENARIO AS A THE MECHANISM HAS NOT ACHIEVED THE DE SIRED RESULTS AND RATHER HAS LEAD TO DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF THE APPEALS . THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS RECALLED ALL THE DIRECTIONS IN DI FFERENT JUDGMENTS BY WHICH IT WAS MANDATORY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SEEK THE PERMISSION OF THE COD BEFORE FILING THE APPEALS IN THE TRIBUNAL. AS THE DIRECTIONS ARE RECALLED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, SAME HAVE BE COME NON EST AND HENCE, THE SAME CONSTITUTES A MISTAKE U/S.254(2 ) OF THE ACT. WE ACCORDINGLY RECALL THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2011 FOR A DJUDICATING GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 IN BOTH THE APPEALS FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02 AND 2002-03. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ORDER IS PARTLY RECALLED FO R THE LIMITED PURPOSE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF GROUND NOS.3 & 4 IN BOTH ASSE SSMENT YEARS WHICH WERE DISMISSED ON SPECIFIC REASON THAT COD AP PROVAL WAS MAS 202 & 203/MUM/2011 M/S. DENA BANK 3 DENIED. REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THESE APPEALS FOR HEARING IN DUE COURSE BY ISSUING NOTICE TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31ST JANUARY , 2012 SD/- ( B. RAMAKOTAIAH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 31ST JANUARY, 2012 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)CENTRAL-III, MUMBAI, 4) THE CIT- III, MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. I BENCH, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *CHAVAN