SAIPEM S.A., V. DDIT(IT)2(1),

MA 664/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0639 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS NEERAJA PRADHAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL L BENCH, MUMBAI . . , .., ! BEFORE SHRI R. S. SYAL, A. M. AND SHRI I. P. BANSAL , J. M. '' '' '' '' # # # #/ // / M.A. NO.664/MUM/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3223/MUM/2008) ( # % &% # % &% # % &% # % &% / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) M/S. SAIPEM S. A. C/O. HAZIRA MARINE ENGG. & CONST. MGMT. P. LTD., TECNIMOUNT ICB HOUSE CHINCHOLI BUNDER, PLOT 504, LINK ROAD, MALAD (WEST), MUMBAI-400 064 # # # # / VS. THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME- TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(1), MUMBAI ' ./ () ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAJCS 3086 Q ( '* / APPELLANT ) : ( +,'* / RESPONDENT ) '* - / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NITESH JOSHI +,'* . - / RESPONDENT BY : MRS. NEERAJA PRADHAN # . /0 / // / DATE OF HEARING : 12.07.2013 12& . /0 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.07.2013 3 3 3 3 / // / O R D E R PER R. S. SYAL, AM: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT L BENCH, MUMBAI IN ITA NOS. 322 3 & 3224/MUM/2008 (AY: 2003-04 & 2004-05) DATED 24.08. 2012. 2 MA NO.664/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2003-04) M/S. SAIPEM S. A. VS. DY. DIT(IT) 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS MISCELLAN EOUS APPLICATION AND THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IS SIMILAR. 3. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TATA TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD V. DCIT [2009] 121 ITD 384 ( MUM) (SB) HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED BY THE HONBL E HIGH COURT, THEN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON THE VERY SAME ISSU E CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THIS POSITION WAS ADMI TTED BY THE LD. AR. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. 4 /5 # %4/ . '' # 4( . (/ 67 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JULY 12 TH , 2013 SD/- SD/- (I. P. BANSAL) (R. S. SYAL) / JUDICIAL M. / ACCOUNTANT M. MUMBAI; 8# DATED : 12.07.2013 .#../ ROSHANI , SR. PS 3 MA NO.664/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2003-04) M/S. SAIPEM S. A. VS. DY. DIT(IT) 3 . +/' 9'&/ 3 . +/' 9'&/ 3 . +/' 9'&/ 3 . +/' 9'&// COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '* / THE APPELLANT 2. +,'* / THE RESPONDENT . 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. : / CIT - CONCERNED 5. '=> +/# , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. >?% @ / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// 3# 3# 3# 3# / BY ORDER, A AA A/ // /6 ( 6 ( 6 ( 6 ( (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI