ITO, Rayagada Ward, Rayagada V. M/s. Jagannath Construction, Rayagada

MA 34/CTK/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3821 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, Rayagada Ward, Rayagada PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Arun Khodpia, AM This is a miscellaneous application order dated 25.4.2017 of the 2012-13. 2. In M.A., the revenue has submitted that in respect of addition made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the Tribunal had followed the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in t Victor Shipping Services Pvt Ltd., 357 ITR 642 (All). It was the submission that the principles lay down in the case of Victor Shipping Services Pvt Ltd., (supra) had been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.No.34/CTK/2017 (in ITA No.147/CTK/2016) Assessment Year : 2012-13 ITO, Rayagada Ward, Rayagada Vs. M/s. Jagannath Construction, At: Bidyanagar, 2 Bhagawan Mandir, Rayagada No.AAIFJ 0479 (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri J.M.Patnaik Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 24/6 Date of Pronouncement : 24/ O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM This is a miscellaneous application filed by the order dated 25.4.2017 of the Tribunal in ITA No.147/CTK/2016 for A.Y. In M.A., the revenue has submitted that in respect of addition made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the Tribunal had followed the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in t Victor Shipping Services Pvt Ltd., 357 ITR 642 (All). It was the submission that the principles lay down in the case of Victor Shipping Services Pvt Ltd., (supra) had been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Page1 | 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 147/CTK/2016) M/s. Jagannath Construction, At: Bidyanagar, 2 nd Lane, Near Ama Bhagawan Mandir, Rayagada Respondent) J.M.Patnaik, AR S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR 6/ 2022 /6/2022 filed by the revenue against the Tribunal in ITA No.147/CTK/2016 for A.Y. In M.A., the revenue has submitted that in respect of addition made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the Tribunal had followed the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Shipping Services Pvt Ltd., 357 ITR 642 (All). It was the submission that the principles lay down in the case of Victor Shipping Services Pvt Ltd., (supra) had been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.A.No.34/CTK/2017 (in ITA No.147/CTK/2016) Assessment Year : 2012-13 Page2 | 3 Palam Gas Services vs CIT (2017) 394 ITR 300 (SC) order dated 3.5.2017. It was the submission that the proposition on which the Tribunal had decided the issue has been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was the prayer that the appeal may be recalled and the issue be decided on merits. 3. In reply, ld AR submitted that the decision in the case of Victor Shipping Services Pvt Ltd. Reported in 357 ITR 642 (supra) was subject matter of SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and same was dismissed vide order dated 2.7.2014. It was the submission that the Tribunal had decided the assessee’s appeal on 25.4.2017 and only after that on 3.5.2017, the decision in the case Palam Gas Services (supra) was rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was the submission that outset the M.A. is liable to be dismissed insofar as the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has rejected the SLP filed against the decision in the case of Victor Shipping Services Pvt Ltd (supra) shows that the issue is debatable. It was the submission that the dismissal of the SLP being on subsequent date, the same was liable to be considered as rule laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. The judicial precedence provides that when there is a speaking order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that, takes the precedence over the simple rejection of SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court having reversed the M.A.No.34/CTK/2017 (in ITA No.147/CTK/2016) Assessment Year : 2012-13 Page3 | 3 proposition laid down in Victor Shipping Services Pvt Ltd (supra) in the case of Palam Gas Services Ltd (supra) vide its decision dated 3.5.2017 that principles become the law of the land from beginning of time. In these circumstances, as clearly there is a mistake apparent on record in the order on the issue of section 40(a)(ia) decided by the Tribunal the same stands recalled and the issue is restored to the file of the Tribunal for re- adjudication. The registry is directed to fix the appeal in regular course for hearing. 5. In the result, M,.A. of the revenue is allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 24/6/2022. SD/- SD/- (George Mathan) (Arun Khodpia) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 24/06/2022 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : ITO, Rayagada Ward, Rayagada 2. The Respondent. M/s. Jagannath Construction, At: Bidyanagar, 2 nd Lane, Near Ama Bhagawan Mandir, Rayagada 3. The CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//