DCIT 3(2), V. IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LTD,

MA 49/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8781 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI MULCHANDANI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI I BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R S SYAL , AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, J M MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.49/MUM/2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 6682/MUM/2008 (ASST YEAR2004-05 ) THE DY COMMR OF INCOME TAX 3(2), MUMBAI VS M/S IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LTD 10THFLOOR, NARIMAN BHAVAN 227 VINAYAK KESHAV MARG NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400 021 (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAACI8192J ASSESSEE BY SHRI RAVI MULCHANDANI REVENUE BY SHRI V KRISHNA MOORTHY DT.OF HEARING 27 TH JULY 2012 DT OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27 TH JULY 2012 PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11 TH JAN 2010 OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHEREBY THE APPEAL OF TH E REVENUE IN ITA NO.6682/MUM/2008 WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF COD APPR OVAL. 2 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD DR AS WELL AS THE LD AR OF T HE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD DR HAS POIN TED OUT THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA, IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1883 OF 2011, COD CLEARAN CE IS NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR FILING THE APPEAL. HE HAS THUS, PLEADED THAT THE IMPUGNE D ORDER MAY BE RECALLED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 2.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD AR HAS OPPOSED THE MI SCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE. MA 49/M/2012 M/S IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LTD 2 3 HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF IND IA (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF COD APPROVAL DID NOT SERVE ITS PURPO SE; THEREFORE, THE COD CLEARANCE IS NOT REQUIRED FOR FILLING THE APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4 IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT A SUBSEQUEN T DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OR JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERS THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS ERRONEOUS BECAUSE THE JUDICIAL DECISION ACT AS RETR OSPECTIVE IN EFFECT. ACCORDINGLY, WE RECALL THE ORDER DATED 11 TH JAN 2010 OF THE TRIBUNAL AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AT ITS ORIGINAL NUMBER AND STAGE. 5 THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 8 TH OCT 2012. 6. SINCE THE DATE OF HEARING WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, NO SEPARATE NOTICES FOR THE HEARING OF APPEAL WILL BE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL ACCORDINGLY FOR HEARING. 7 IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILE D BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING I.E 27 TH JULY 2012 SD/- SD/- ( R S SYAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 27 TH , JULY 2012 RAJ* MA 49/M/2012 M/S IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LTD 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI