DDIT, CHENNAI V. Tamil Nadu Text Book Corporation, CHENNAI

MA 22/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7737 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] M.P.NOS.270/MDS/2011, 21 & 22/MDS/2012 [IN I.T.A NOS.1519 TO 1521/MDS/2008] ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1999-2000,2000-01 AND 2001 -02 THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-I CHENNAI VS M/S TAMIL NADU TEXT BOOK CORPORATION COLLEGE ROAD CHENNAI 600 006 (PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 23-3-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23-3-2012 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIO NS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATE D 1.5.2009, PASSED IN I.T.A.NOS.1519 TO 1521/MDS/2008. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE APPEAL S OF THE REVENUE WERE DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TAMIL NADU WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VS THE DY. CIT [2009] 309 ITR 252 (MAD) WHERE IT WAS M.P 270/11, 21 & 22/12 :- 2 -: HELD THAT PERMISSION OF COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES (COD) WAS NECESSARY FOR FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND AS THE R EVENUE HAS NOT OBTAINED THE SAID PERMISSION OF COD, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE WERE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 3. THE REVENUE HAS STATED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETI TIONS THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 17.2.201 1 IN THE CASE OF ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD VS UNION OF I NDIA & OTHERS,[2011] 332 ITR 58(S.C), HAS HELD THAT THE MECHANISM OF OBT AINING APPROVAL FROM THE COD HAS OUTLIVED ITS UTILITY AND THEREFORE , THE VARIOUS ORDERS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED AS (I) ONGC V S CCE[1995]SUPP 4 SCC 541 DATED OCTOBER 11, 1991, (II) ONGC VS CCE [2004] 6 SCC 437 DATED JANUARY 7, 1994, AND (III) ONGC VS CITY A ND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [2007] 7 SCC 39 DATED JULY 20, 2007, ARE RECALLED. THUS, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT IT WAS NO LONGER NECESSARY FOR THE REVENUE TO OBTAIN COD APPR OVAL FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A N ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DISMISSING THE APPEALS OF THE RE VENUE AND THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORDERS U/S 254(2) O F THE ACT AND RECALL THE ORDER FOR HEARING THE APPEALS ON MERITS. 4. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE RESPONDENT- ASS ESSEE ON 13.3.2012. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, N ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE MISCELLANEOUS M.P 270/11, 21 & 22/12 :- 3 -: PETITIONS WERE HEARD EX-PARTE QUA THE RESPONDENT-AS SESSEE AND DISPOSED OF AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR. WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF IND IA LTD VS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (SUPRA), HAS RECALLED ITS EARLIER OR DERS WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT APPROVAL OF COD WAS NECESSARY FOR FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AFTER THE RECALLING OF THE SAID ORDERS O F THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL WHICH REQUIRES RECTIFICATION BY PASSING NECESSARY ORDER U/S 254(2 ) OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, RECALL THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL DATED 1.5.2009 IN I.T.A.NO. 1519 TO 1521/MDS/2008 AND RESTORE THE APPEALS BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL NUMBERS. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO SEND NOTICE OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES IN USUAL COURSE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION S ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23-3-2012. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 23 RD MARCH, 2012 RD COPY TO: PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR