The iTO, wd-3, Palakkad V. M/s.The Cherppulassery Service Co-op Bank Ltd, Palakkad

MA 89/COCH/2019

AI Insights

This case involves a set of three Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) filed by the Revenue under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning appeals for the assessment years 2013-2014 to 2015-2016. These appeals were initially dismissed by the Tribunal based on a Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, which was later overturned by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Tribunal, after considering the legal precedents and the submissions from both parties, decided to allow the MAs and restore the appeals for a fresh decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115438 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Pr. CIT v. Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2019] 414 ITR 67 (Ker)(FB), Chirakkal SCB Ltd. v. CIT [2016] 384 ITR 490 (Ker), Kil Kotagiri Tea &Coffee Estates v. ITAT [1988] 174 ITR 579 (Ker), Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC), CIT v. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (P&H)(FB), CIT v. Gracemac Corporation[2023] 456 ITR 135 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM &Shri Manomohan Das, JM MA No.88/Coch/2019: Asst.Year:2013-2014 (Arising out of ITA No.14/Coch/2019) MA No.89/Coch/2019: Asst.Year:2014-2015 (Arising out of ITA No.15/Coch/2019) MA No.90/Coch/2019: Asst.Year:2015-2016 (Arising out of ITA No.16/Coch/2019) The Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Palakkad vs. The Cherplassery Service Co- operative Bank Limited Cherplassery Palakkad – 679 503 [PAN: AAAAT4215F] (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant by: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR Respondent by: Ms.Divya Ravindran, Advocate Date of Hearing: 08.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 08.09.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is a set of three Miscellaneous Applications (MAs.) by the Revenue under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) in respect of it’s captioned appeals for assessment years (AYs.) 2013-2014 to 2015-2016, dismissed by the Tribunal vide it’s combined order u/s.254(1) of the Act dated 01.03.2019. 2. The Revenue’s MAs, presented on 13.8.2019,are in time, and arise on the strength of the Full Bench decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT v. Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2019] 414 ITR 67 (Ker)(FB), overruling its earlier decision in Chirakkal SCB Ltd. v. CIT [2016] 384 ITR 490 (Ker),followed by the Tribunal per the impugned order. The assessee’s case, on the other hand, is that it would be an exercise in futility inasmuch the said larger bench MA Nos.88-90/Coch/2019 (AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) I T O v . T he C h e r p l as s e r y S C B L i m i t e d . 2 decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court stands since reversed by the Hon’ble Apex Court per its decision reported at [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC). 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 That rectification would ensue or, rather ought to, in view of a contrary decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court or Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, even if delivered subsequent to the order sought to be rectified, inasmuch as the said decision lays down the law as it always stood, forms part of well-settled law, for which the Revenue relies on Kil Kotagiri Tea &Coffee Estates v. ITAT [1988] 174 ITR 579 (Ker), and toward which we may also cite some: Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC); CIT v. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (P&H)(FB)). The instant MAs are thus maintainable, and ground, valid. 3.2 As regards the assessee’s plea of the judgment relied upon having been since overruled, the same cannot be applied directly, and would require a fresh decision by the Tribunal on merits in accordance with law after hearing the parties. As explained recently in CIT v. Gracemac Corporation[2023] 456 ITR 135 (SC), once a judgment is passed by a court following another judgment, and subsequently the latter judgment is overruled on a question of law, it cannot have an effect of reopening or reviving the former judgment passed following the overruled judgment nor can the same be reviewed. 4. Under the circumstances, and in view of the stated legal position, we, accepting the Revenue’s MAs, restore the Revenue’s appeals for a decision afresh on merits in accordance with law. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the Revenue’s MAs are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the conclusion of the hearing. Sd/- (Manomohan Das) Sd/- (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Cochin; Dated: September 08, 2023 Devadas G* MA Nos.88-90/Coch/2019 (AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) I T O v . T he C h e r p l as s e r y S C B L i m i t e d . 3 Copy to: 1. The Applicant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin Bench. 5. Guard File. Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin.