DCIT, CHENNAI V. Indian Overseas Bank, CHENNAI

MA 225/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4445 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI ... , ! ', $ %& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NOS.224, 225 & 226/MDS/2013 (IN ITA NO.577/MDS/2005 & ITA NOS.117 & 118/MDS/200 7 ) ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1997-98, 2000-01 & 2003-04 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, CHENNAI - 600 101. V. M/S INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CENTRAL OFFICE, NO.762, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002. PAN : AAACI 1223 J (*+' /PETITIONER) (*,+-/ RESPONDENT) *+' / 0 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT *,+- / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C. NARESH, CA 1 / 2$ / DATE OF HEARING : 10.06.2016 34( / 2$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.07.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ALL THE THREE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE FILED B Y THE REVENUE PRAYING FOR RECALL OF THE ORDERS OF THIS TR IBUNAL DATED 20.08.2007 AND 21.01.2008. 2. SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL BY ORDERS DATED 20.08. 2007 AND 2 M.P. NOS.224, 225 & 226/MDS/13 21.01.2008 DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLEARANCE OF COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES (CABINE T SECRETARIAT) WAS NOT OBTAINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF AP EX COURT IN OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION V. CCE (1995) SUPPL. 4 A CC 541. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., NOW A CONSTITUTIONAL BEN CH OF APEX COURT IN ELECTRONICS CORPORATION INDIA LTD. V. UNION OF I NDIA IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1883 OF 2011 FOUND THAT CLEARANCE OF COMMITTEE O N DISPUTES IS NOT REQUIRED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE DIRECTION ISSUED EARLIER IN OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION (SUPRA) WAS RECALLED. SINCE THE ORDER OF THE APEX COURT IN OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION (S UPRA) WAS RECALLED, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO OBTAIN THE APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE ON D ISPUTES, THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS PRAYING FOR RECALL OF THE ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 20. 08.2007 AND 21.01.2008. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, HOW THESE M ISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS WERE MAINTAINABLE SINCE ADMITTEDLY THE SA ME WERE FILED AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS PERIOD FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION OF FOUR YEARS HAS TO BE COMPUTED FROM THE DATE OF THE JUDGM ENT OF APEX COURT IN ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (SUP RA). THE APEX COURT JUDGMENT IS DATED 17.02.2011, THEREFORE, ACCO RDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVE NUE ON 3 M.P. NOS.224, 225 & 226/MDS/13 15.01.2013 ARE AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI C. NARESH, THE LD. REPRESE NTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE RECTIFICATION OF O RDER UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE SUO MOTO BY THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL OR ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY EITHER ONE OF THE PARTIES WITHIN FOUR YEAR S FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. IN THIS CASE, THE APPL ICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 15.01.2013 IS ADMITTEDLY BEYOND THE PERI OD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. ACC ORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL ARE DAT ED 20.08.2007 AND 21.01.2008 AND THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED ON 19.0 8.2011 AND 20.01.2012 RESPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 15.01.2013 ARE ADMITTEDLY BEYOND THE PER IOD OF LIMITATION. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRES ENTATIVE, THE PETITIONS OF REVENUE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGM ENT OF JHARKHAND HIGH COURT IN W.P(T) NO.6852 OF 2013 IN HINDUSTAN C OPPER LIMITED V. UNION OF INDIA DATED 13.03.2014. THE LD. REPRES ENTATIVE HAS ALSO PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENTS OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT V. AIR INDIA LTD. (2016) 383 ITR 284 AND IN CIT V. CENTRAL BANK OF 4 M.P. NOS.224, 225 & 226/MDS/13 INDIA (2014) 51 TAXMANN.COM 527. THE LD. REPRESENT ATIVE HAS ALSO PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF TELANGANA AN D ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN CIT V. STATE BANK OF HYDERABA D (2016) 382 ITR 499. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE WERE DISMISSED BY THIS T RIBUNAL BY ORDERS DATED 20.08.2007 AND 21.01.2008 ON THE GROUN D THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT OBTAINED THE CLEARANCE OF COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES FOR FILING THESE APPEALS AS DIRECTED BY APEX COURT IN OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION (SUPRA). IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CLEA RANCE FROM THE COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES, THIS TRIBUNAL DISMISSED ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. 5. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE APEX COURT IN ELECTRONICS CORP ORATION OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) FOUND THAT CLEARANCE FROM THE CO MMITTEE ON DISPUTES IS NOT REQUIRED FOR FILING THE APPEALS BEF ORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND ACCORDINGLY, THE DIRECTION ISSUED IN OIL AND NA TURAL GAS COMMISSION (SUPRA) WAS RECALLED BY THE APEX COURT. IN VIEW OF THE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN ELECTRONICS CO RPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), THE REVENUE FILED MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 15.01.2013. AFTER RECEIPT OF THES E MISCELLANEOUS 5 M.P. NOS.224, 225 & 226/MDS/13 PETITIONS, THE REGISTRY HAS NOT PROCESSED THE SAME AND THESE WERE NOT EVEN REGISTERED AND NUMBERED. IN THE MEANTIME, THIS TRIBUNAL SUO MOTO RECALLED THE ORDERS PASSED ON 20.08.2007 AND 21.01 .2008 BY AN ORDER DATED 18.04.2013. THE ASSESSEE FILED M ISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS IN M.P. NOS.133, 134, 135 & 136/MDS/2014 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 18.4.13. THIS TRIBUNA L BY AN ORDER DATED 31.07.2015 EXAMINED THE ISSUE ELABORATELY AND FOUND THAT THE ORDER DATED 18.04.02013 WAS PASSED SUO MOTO WITHOUT EVEN GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WAS NOT FOLLOWED . AFTER REFERRING TO THE RECORDS OF THE APPEALS, THIS TRIBUNAL SPECIFICA LLY FOUND THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 15. 01.2013 WERE NOT EVEN NUMBERED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER PASSED B Y THIS TRIBUNAL SUO MOTO ON 18.04.2013 WAS RECALLED AND THE ORDERS PASSED ON APPEAL BY THIS TRIBUNAL ON 20.08.2007 AND 21.01.200 8 WERE RESTORED. AFTER THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 31.07.2015 RESTORING THE ORIGINAL ORDERS ON APPEAL DATED 20.08 .2007 AND 21.01.2008, THE REVENUE FILED A LETTER ON 20.11.201 5 REQUESTING THE TRIBUNAL TO TAKE THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 15.01.2013 ON RECORD AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW. WHEN THESE PETITIONS WERE PUT UP BEFORE THE B ENCH ON 13.04.2016, THE BENCH DIRECTED THE REGISTRY TO REGI STER THESE 6 M.P. NOS.224, 225 & 226/MDS/13 PETITIONS AS MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS AND POST THE S AME ON 13.05.2016. FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVENIENCE, THE OR DER OF THE BENCH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- REGISTER THE PETITION OF REVENUE AS MA AND POST ON 13.05.2016. SD/- SD/- A.M. JM/13.04.16 ACCORDINGLY, THE REGISTRY REGISTERED THE PETITIONS ALLOTTING NUMBERS 224, 225 & 226/MDS/2013. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE REVENUE FILED THE PETITIONS ON 15.01.02013 AND THESE WERE NOT TAK EN ON FILE AND NOT EVEN NUMBERED. WHEN THE MATTER WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH BY THE REVENUE ON 20.11.2015, THE BENCH D IRECTED THE REGISTRY TO REGISTER THE PETITIONS. ACCORDINGLY, T HE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN REGISTERED ON OR AFTER 13.05.2016, I.E. AFTER THE DIRECTION OF THE BENCH. THEREFORE, THE N UMBER SHOULD BE ALLOTTED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PETITIONS WERE RE GISTERED. HOWEVER, BY MISTAKE, THE REGISTRY HAS REGISTERED THE MISCELL ANEOUS PETITIONS AS IF THESE WERE OF THE YEAR 2013. THE REGISTRY O UGHT TO HAVE REGISTERED THESE PETITIONS AND ALLOTTED THE NUMBERS IN THE YEAR 2016. UNFORTUNATELY, THE REGISTRY HAS REGISTERED THE PETI TIONS AS A LAST ONE IN THE YEAR 2013. THIS IS APPARENT ON VERIFICATION OF M.P. REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE REGISTRY. 7 M.P. NOS.224, 225 & 226/MDS/13 6. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW WHEN THE AS SESSEE/ REVENUE FILED A PETITION OR APPEAL, IT HAS TO BE SC RUTINIZED AND SHOULD BE REGISTERED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS TA KEN ON FILE. THE NUMBER SHOULD BE ALLOTTED ON THE DAY ON WHICH THE A PPEAL WAS ACTUALLY TAKEN ON FILE. IN THIS CASE, THE MISCELLA NEOUS PETITIONS WERE FILED ON 15.01.2013 AND THESE WERE NOT TAKEN ON FIL E TILL 13.04.2016. THEREFORE, THE NUMBER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED AFT ER 13.04.2016. BE THAT AS IT MAY. NOW COMING TO THE APPLICATION F ILED BY THE REVENUE, ADMITTEDLY, THE ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL WE RE DATED 20.08.2007 AND 21.01.2008. AGAINST THE ORDERS OF T HE TRIBUNAL DATED 20.08.2007 AND 21.01.2008, THE REVENUE FILED PETITIONS ON 15.01.2013, WHICH IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEAR S AS PROVIDED IN 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED BY TH IS TRIBUNAL DISMISSING THE APPEALS FOR WANT OF CLEARANCE FROM C OMMITTEE ON DISPUTES WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF THE ACT . IN OTHER WORDS, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE WERE DISMISSED AN D DISPOSED OF FINALLY BY AN ORDER DATED 20.08.2007 AND 21.01.2008 UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF THE ACT. 7. A QUESTION MAY ALSO ARISE WHETHER ORDERS PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL ON 20.8.2007 AND 21.01.2008 ARE INTERIM OR DERS OR FINAL ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF THE ACT? THI S WAS EXAMINED 8 M.P. NOS.224, 225 & 226/MDS/13 BY BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN AIR INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) AND FOUND THAT IT IS AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF THE ACT. T HEREFORE, IT IS NOT AN INTERIM ORDER. 8. NOW THE PETITIONS OF THE REVENUE WERE REGISTERED AS DIRECTED BY THE BENCH ON THE LETTER FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 20.11.2015. AS ALREADY OBSERVED, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN REGISTERED IN THE YEAR 2016. SINCE THE REGISTRY BY MISTAKE REGISTERED THE PETITIONS IN THE YEAR IN 2013, JUST TO AVOID CONFUSION, WE HAVE TAKEN/GIVEN THE SAME NUMBER IN THE PREAMBLE OF THE ORDER. IN OTHER WORDS, MERELY BECAUSE THE NUMBER WAS MENTI ONED IN THE PREAMBLE OF THE ORDER AS 224, 225 & 226/MDS/2013, I T SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED THAT THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS WERE T AKEN IN THE YEAR 2013 ITSELF. FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARIFICATION, WE REITERATE THAT THE APPLICATION WAS TAKEN ON FILE AND NUMBERED AFTER 13 .04.2016 BY THE DIRECTION OF THE BENCH ON THE LETTER FILED BY THE R EVENUE ON 20.11.2015. THEREFORE, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, IT HAS TO BE CONSTRUED THAT THE APPLICATION WAS TAKEN ON FILE AN D NUMBERED IN 2016. 9. NOW COMING TO THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION , ADMITTEDLY, THE REVENUE FILED THE PETITIONS ON 15.0 1.2013, WHICH IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS, THEREFORE, THIS TR IBUNAL IS OF THE 9 M.P. NOS.224, 225 & 226/MDS/13 CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF JHARKHAND HIGH COURT IN HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED (SUPRA). TH E ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF JHARKHAND HIGH COUR T. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME BEFORE THE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT. THE CA SE BEFORE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT WAS THAT CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SER VICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E REVENUE. THE REVENUE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION ON FIL E. THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. SUBSEQUENTLY, A WRIT PETITION WAS FILED CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE JHARKHA ND HIGH COURT AT RANCHI ON THE GROUND THAT AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), CLEA RANCE OF COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES IS NOT REQUIRED. THE JHARKH AND HIGH COURT FOUND THAT THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING, NAMELY, H INDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED, HAS NOT OBTAINED ANY CLEARANCE. NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO INDICATE THAT THEY HAVE APPROACHED THE COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES TO OBTAIN CLEARANCE. IN THOSE FACTUAL CIR CUMSTANCES, THE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT FOUND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RI GHTLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING. IN O THER WORDS, THE 10 M.P. NOS.224, 225 & 226/MDS/13 PRAYER OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING TO RESTORE THE APPEAL ON FILE WAS REJECTED BY REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT OF ELECTR ONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA). 11. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMEN T OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN AIR INDIA LTD. (SUPRA). IN TH E CASE BEFORE THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE DEPARTMENT APPEAL WAS DISMIS SED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR FAILURE OF OBTAINING CLEARANCE FROM CO MMITTEE ON DISPUTES. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOUND THAT THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSING THE APPEAL IS AN ORDER PASS ED UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF THE ACT AND HELD THAT THE JUDGMENT OF APE X COURT CONSEQUENTLY DOING AWAY WITH APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES CANNOT BE A REASON TO RECALL THE ORDER BEYOND THE P ERIOD OF FOUR YEARS. IN THE CASE BEFORE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN FA CT, THE PETITION WAS FILED AFTER FIVE YEARS. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE LIMITATION PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 254 (2) OF THE ACT WAS VERY MUCH APPLICABLE AND ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE P RAYER OF THE REVENUE TO RESTORE THE APPEAL ON FILE. 12. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMEN T OF TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN STATE BA NK OF HYDERABAD (SUPRA). THE TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADES H HIGH COURT FOUND THAT A CITIZEN IS ENTITLED TO HAVE CERT AINTY WITH REGARD TO 11 M.P. NOS.224, 225 & 226/MDS/13 HIS OR HER LIABILITY AND ISSUES WHICH WERE SETTLED LONG BACK SHOULD NOT BE REOPENED AS IT WOULD LEAD TO UPSETTING THE E NTIRE FINANCIAL PLANNING OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS ACCEPTED AN ORDE R AS FINAL. THE TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT FURTHER FOU ND THAT THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN ELECTRONICS CORPORATION O F INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) WAS DATED 17.02.2011 AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS IN FACT DISMISSED ON 30.09.2010. HOWEVER, THE APPL ICATION WAS FILED IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 2014, I.E. AFTER A SUBSTAN TIAL LAPSE OF A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS. THE HIGH COURT FOUND THAT A FTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTORS, THE TRIBUNAL REFUSED TO RECALL THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2010. ACCORDINGLY, THE HIGH COURT FOUN D THAT THERE WAS NO INFIRMITY. IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL BY ORDERS DATED 20.08.2007 AND 21.01.2008. THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT WAS PRONOUNCED ON 17.02.2011 . THE REVENUE FILED THE APPLICATION ONLY ON 15.01.2013. THEREFORE, AS FOUND BY THE TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COUR T, THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 15.01.2013, AFTER SUBSTANTIAL LAPSE OF PERIOD CANNOT BE THE REASON TO RESTORE THE APPEA LS ON FILE. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE C ONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 15.01.2013 PRAYING FOR RECALL THE ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATE D 20.08.2007 AND 12 M.P. NOS.224, 225 & 226/MDS/13 21.01.2008 IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS PR OVIDED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT AND AFTER LAPSE OF SUBSTA NTIAL TIME FROM THE DATE OF JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN ELECTRONICS CORPO RATION OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA). THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE C ONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVEN UE HAS NO MERIT AT ALL. 14. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, ALL THE THREE MISCE LLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JULY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' ) ( ... ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, THE 29 TH JULY, 2016. KRI. / *278 98(2 /COPY TO: 1. *+' / PETITIONER 2. *,+- /RESPONDENT 3. 1 :2 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 :2 /CIT 5. 8; *2 /DR 6. <' = /GF.