ITO, Bhubaneswar V. OMFED Trust, Cuttack

MA 23/CTK/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8623 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2012
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B K MAHAPATRA
• Assessee Lawyers: PARAMITA TRIPATHY
• Section: 45(2); 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INC O ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE : SHRI K.K.GUPTA, AM , AND SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JM MISC.APPLICATION NO.023 & 24/CTK/2011 IN ITA NO. 062 & 63 /CTK/2010, ORDER DT.13.04.2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2000 - 01 AND 2002 - 03) OMF ED TRUST,D - 2, SAHID NAGAR,BHUBANESWAR PAN: AADTS 7895 N VERSUS INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), BHUBANESWAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI B.K.MAHAPATRA, AR FOR THE RESPONDENT SMT. PARAMITA TRIPATHY, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.06.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.06.2012 ORDER SHRI K.K.GUPTA, AM : THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS MISC. APPLICATIONS SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DT.13.04.2011 PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.062 AND 036/CTK/2010 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2001 - 01 AND 2002 - 03 IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. LEARNED CIT - DR CONTENDED THAT THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE REVENUE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEALS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE APPEALS BEING NOT SINGED BY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 140(F) READ WITH SECTION 45(2) AND RULE 47(1) OF THE I.T.RULES,1962 , WAS NOT DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF GOLD STONE EXPORTS LTD., (104 ITD 15) AND OTHER JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED ON BY THE REVEN UE. SHE THEREFORE, PRAYED TO RECTIFY THE ORDER DT.13.4.2011 ACCORDINGLY. BUT, WE FIND THAT THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARAGRAPHS 5 AND 6 OF ITS ORDER WHICH RESULTED IN REJECTION OF THE OBJECTION. THEREFORE, T HE PRAYER OF THE REVENUE FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE VERY SAME ISSUE BY WAY OF MISC.APPLICATION , IF CONSIDERED WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO REVIEW OF OWN ORDER, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. THEREFORE, THE RECTIFICATION SOUGHT FOR BY THE REVENUE DOES NOT COME UNDER PURVIEW OF 2 SECTION 254(2) OF THE I.T.ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE REJECT THE MISC.APPLICATIONS. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC.APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. S D/ - S D/ - (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( K.K.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 29.06.2012 H.K.PADHEE, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT: OMFED TRUST,D - 2, SAHID NAGAR,BHUBANESWAR 2. THE RESPONDENT: INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), BHUBANESWAR. 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE DR, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. APPENDIX XVII SEAL TO BE AFFIXED ON THE ORDER SHEET BY THE SR. P.S./P.S. AFTER DICTATION IS GIVEN 1. DATE OF DICTATION 25.06.2012 .. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 27.06.2012 OTHER MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S . 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CL ERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER ................ 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER ..