M/S Bharat Overseas Bank(Since Taken Over by Indian Overseas Bank), CHENNAI V. ACIT Co Cle I (2), CHENNAI

MA 237/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9983 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. M.P. NOS. 237 & 238/MDS/2012 (IN I.T.A. NOS. 830 & 831/MDS/2010) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 & 2007-08 M/S BHARAT OVERSEAS BANK LTD., (SINCE TAKEN OVER BY INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK) ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, 763, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002. PAN : AAACB 1374 M (PETITIONER) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE I(2), CHENNAI - 600 034 . (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI C. NARESH, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 01.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01.02.2013 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THROUGH THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS, PLEADING O F THE ASSESSEE IS THAT PERMISSION FROM COD WAS NOT REQUIR ED FOR PURSUING AN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL IN VIEW OF THE DECISION O F HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF IND IA LTD. V. UNION OF M.P. NOS. 237 & 238/MDS/12 2 INDIA (322 ITR 58). THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO IT, TH E ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DISMISSING THE APPEALS FOR WANT OF SUCH AP PROVAL, REQUIRED A RECALL. 2. LEARNED A.R. POINTED OUT THAT IN REVENUES M.P. NOS. 70 & 71/MDS/12 DATED 13 TH JULY, 2012, THEY HAD PRAYED FOR RECALL OF I.T.A. NOS. 830 & 831/MDS/2010. VIDE ORDER DATED 13 TH JULY, 2012, SUCH MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS WERE ALLOWED AND APPEALS RE CALLED AND POSTED FOR HEARING. AS PER LEARNED A.R., DEPARTMEN TS APPEALS WERE NUMBERED AS I.T.A. NOS. 1183 & 1184/MDS/10 AND THER E WAS ERROR IN THIS REGARD IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHEN IT MENTIONED WRONG APPEAL NUMBERS. 3. LEARNED D.R. HAS ACCEPTED THAT SUCH AN ERROR WAS THERE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. B UT, NEVERTHELESS, ACCORDING TO HIM, DEPARTMENTS APPEALS IN I.T.A. NO S. 1183 & 1184/MDS/2010 ALSO HAD TO BE RECALLED. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE SUBMIS SIONS. WE HAVE ALREADY ORDERED RECALL OF APPEAL NOS. 830 & 83 1/MDS/2010 VIDE OUR ORDER DATED 13.7.2012 IN DEPARTMENTS M.P. NOS. 70 & 71/MDS/2012. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, W E ARE OF THE M.P. NOS. 237 & 238/MDS/12 3 OPINION THAT THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR THE IMP UGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE HEARD ALON G WITH APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE RECAL L ORDERS IN DEPARTMENTS APPEAL NOS.1183 & 1184/MDS/2010 ALSO F OR HEARING ALONG WITH I.T.A. NOS. 830 & 831/MDS/2010. REGISTR Y IS DIRECTED TO POST ALL THESE APPEALS TOGETHER. NOTICES SHALL BE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE DISPO SED OF IN THE MANNER MENTIONED ABOVE. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 1 ST OF FEBRUARY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (V. DURGA RAO) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2013. KRI. COPY TO: (1) PETITIONER (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) (4) CIT (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE