Pawan Hans Limited, New Delhi V. DCIT, Spl. Range-27 , New Delhi

MA 455/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1560 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No.-455/Del/2019 [In ITA No.6590/Del/1995] [Assessment Year : 1991-92] M/s. Pawan Hans Ltd., Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi PAN-AAACP1561A vs DCIT, Spl. Range-27, New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Ms.Supriya Mehta, CA Respondent by Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 23.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 06.10.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the applicant seeking recalling of the order dated 08.04.2022 in ITA No.1000/Del/2003 passed by the Tribunal for the Assessment year 1999-2000. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the facts are identical as were in M.A.No.461/Del/2019. 3. Ld. Sr. DR opposed the submissions and fairly conceded that under the identical facts, M.A. filed by the assessee in ITA No.1000/Del/2003 has been allowed by the Tribunal. 4. We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts are identical as were in M.A.No.461/Del/2019. In that case, the Tribunal was pleased to hold as under:- 2 | Page 5. “We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is seen from the record that the present application, seeking recalling of the Tribunal’s order is made after a lapse of substantial time. Learned counsel for the assessee urged that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, rendered in the case of Airport Authority of India (supra), the provisions of section 254(2) would not apply. Moreover, he submitted that under identical facts the Tribunal in assessee’s own case rendered in MA Nos. 457 to 459/Del/2019 & 460/Del/2017 for assessment years 1995-96 to 1997-98 & 1990- 91, vide order dated 30.09.2019 has recalled its order. Therefore, he submitted that the present application may also be allowed and the order dated 17.2,2006 may be recalled. We find that this Tribunal had dismissed the appeal by observing as under: "3. We have heard both the parties. It is observed that the assessee has failed to obtain the approval of Committee on disputes since assessee is a Public sector Undertaking. It is also noticed that this appeal was filed on 6.3.2003. Furthermore, no explanation is being given as to why the assessee has not obtained the approval of the committee on disputes when the appeal was filed almost three years ago. We are of the considered view that the assessee is not interested to pursue the matter. Under the circumstances, we decline to admit the appeal and dismiss the same in limine. ” 6. Learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Airport Authority of India (supra), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: In the present case, there was no decision of the appeal on merits under Section 254(1) by the tribunal. Section 254(2) for rectification is not applicable. The order passed earlier on 27th July, 2004 was based upon the decisions of the 3 | Page Supreme Court and gave liberty to seek adjudication of the appeal after COD approval. As the process or the requirement for COD approval itself has been erased, the Revenue could have and had rightly preferred an application seeking revival of the appeal in view of the decision dated 17th February, 2011 in the case of Electronic Cooperation of India (supra). " 7. Further the Tribunal in MA no. 457 to 459/Del/2019 & 460/Del/2017 has recalled the order by observing as under: "We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the Tribunal had dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee for want of COD approval. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India (supra) has, held that the mechanism for which COD was set up has outlived its utility and accordingly they had recalled the directions in various decisions including the decision in the case of ONGC vs. CCE. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that a mistake has crept in the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeals for want of COD approval. We, therefore, recall the order of the Tribunal for all the four years above and the appeals are to be heard on merit The Registry is directed to issue notice to both the parties in normal course.” 8. Therefore, considering the above binding decisions, we hereby recall our order dated 17.2.2006 passed in ITA No. 1000/Del/2003 and direct the Registry to fix the hearing of the appeal in due course.” Therefore, taking the consistent view, we hereby recall the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by this Tribunal and the Registry is directed to fix this appeal for hearing in due course. 4 | Page 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open Court on 06 th October, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI