PALLAVI JENS P. LTD, v. ITO WD 9(2)(4),

MA 588/MUM/2009 | 1996-1997
Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2010

Appeal Details

RSA Number 58819924 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACU4122G
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number MA 588/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant PALLAVI JENS P. LTD,
Respondent ITO WD 9(2)(4),
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 16-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted I
Tribunal Order Date 16-04-2010
Assessment Year 1996-1997
Appeal Filed On 20-08-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH: MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI R S SYAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D K AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO 588/MUM/2009 ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS 173 3215 3204 3216 3605 3217 3681 3218 3682/MUM/2003 & ITAS 4736 AND 4455/MUM/2004 FOR A YS 1995-1996 TO 1999- 2000 & AYS 2000-01 AND 2000-01 ACIT 5(1) MUMBAI VS ESSAR PROJECTS LTD ESSAR HOUSE 11 M K MARG MAHALAXMI MUMBAI -400 034 PAN: AAACU 4122 G APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY: MR T T JACOB RESPONDENT BY: MR VIJAY MEHTA ORDER PER R S SYAL THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA) U/S 254(2) OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE REVENUE PRAYING FOR THE RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 8.1.2008 PASSED IN ABOVE CAPTION ED ITAS IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96 TO 2000-01. 2. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CO NTENDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL PASSED CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION EX PARTE QUA THE REVENUE. IT WAS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE SAI D ORDER BE RECALLED AND THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR A FRESH DECISION AS PER LAW. IN THE OPPOSITION THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE CONTENDED THAT THE REVENUE WENT UP IN APPEAL AGAINST THIS TRIBUNAL ORD ER BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN DISMISSED VIDE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT MA 588/M/2009 ESSAR PROJECTS LTD 2 DATED 22.7.2009. A COPY OF THIS JUDGMENT WAS PLACE D ON RECORD. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE MA FILED AFTER THE JUDGMENT SH OULD BE DISMISSED. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS NOTED THAT THE REVENUE WENT IN APP EAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN DISMISSED. RESULTANTLY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER STANDS MERGED WITH THAT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. AS SUCH THERE CANNOT BE ANY QUESTION OF RECALLING OR MODIFYING THIS ORDER ON A CALL FROM A REVENUE AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF THEIR APPEAL BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT . 4. IN THE RESULT MA IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 16TH APRIL 2010. SD/- ( D K AGARWAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( R S SYAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATE: 16TH APRIL 2010 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPLICANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CCIT (A) CONCERNED .. MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT - CONCERNED .. MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. D BENCH MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. MUMBAI CHAVAN* MA 588/M/2009 ESSAR PROJECTS LTD 3 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 16.4.2010 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 16.4.2010 SR.PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER *