ACIT, Aluva v. M/s.Nambiattukudy Agro Industries, Perumbavoor

MA 6/COCH/2014 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2014

Appeal Details

RSA Number 621924 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AACFN6936G
Bench Cochin
Appeal Number MA 6/COCH/2014
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Aluva
Respondent M/s.Nambiattukudy Agro Industries, Perumbavoor
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 04-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 04-04-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 04-04-2014
Next Hearing Date 04-04-2014
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 27-11-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN JM AND B.R.BASKAR AN AM M.P. NO. 06/COCH/2014 (ARSG. OUT OF M.P. NO. 164/2009 IN I.T.A. NO. 770/C OCH/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1 ALUVA. VS. M/S. NAMBIATHKUDY AGRO INDUSTRIES KOOVAPADY P.O. PERMBAVOOR-683 544. [PAN: AACFN 6936G] (REVENUE -APPELLANT) (ASSESSEE-RESPONDEN T) REVENUE BY SMT. LATHA V. KUMAR JR. DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI MATHEW JOSEPH CA DATE OF HEARING 04/04/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04/04/2014 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER DATED 03-02-2012 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN M.P. NO. 164/COCH/2009. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD . WE NOTICE THAT THE ORIGINAL ORDER IN I.T.A. NO. 770/COCH/2007 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04 WAS PASSED ON 28-08-2008. SUBSEQUENTLY THE RE VENUE MOVED A PETITION WHICH WAS NUMBERED AS M.P. NO. 02/COCH/2009 AGAINS T THE ORDER REFERRED ABOVE. THE ABOVE SAID PETITION WAS DISMISSED BY TH E CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL ON 24-03-2009. SUBSEQUENTLY ANOTHER MISC ELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS MOVED AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ORDER WHICH WAS NUMBERE D AS M.P. NO. M.P. NO. 06/COCH/2014 2 164/COCH/2009. THE SAID MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION W AS DISMISSED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH ON 03-02-2012. THE QUESTION THAT WA S CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE INSTRUC TION NO. 05/2008 DATED 15.5.2008 ISSUED BY THE CBDT PRESCRIBING MONETARY L IMITS FOR FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 2 8.08.2008 THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX EFF ECT IN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL WAS LOWER THAN THAT PRESCRIBED IN THE INSTRUCTION I SSUED BY THE CBDT. NOW THE REVENUE HAS MOVED THIS PRESENT PETITION AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03-02-2012 PASSED ON M.P. NO. 164/COCH/2009 ON THE VERY SAME I SSUE. 3. ADMITTEDLY THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MI SCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN M.P. NO.164/COCH/2009. THE QUESTION TH AT ARISES NOW IS WHETHER THE PARTIES ARE ENTITLED FILE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIO N AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ANOTHER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION O N THE VERY SAME ISSUE. AN IDENTICAL QUESTION WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE JU RISDICTIONAL KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AISWARYA TRADING COMPANY (33 1 ITR 521) AND IT WAS HELD AS UNDER BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT:- ..IN OTHER WORDS EVEN AFTER THE TRIBUNAL RECTIF IES THE APPELLATE ORDER U/S. 254(2) ON ANY ISSUE RAISED STILL THE ORIGINAL ORDER CAN BE RECTIFIED ON ANY OTHER ISSUE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER IF THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FILED BY ONE OF THE PARTIES IS ALLOWED OR REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THE VERY SAME ISSUE CANNOT BE AGITATED IN ANOTHER RECTIFICATION APPLICATION BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY. IF THIS IS DONE AND ALLOWED TO BE ENTERTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL THEN WHAT HAPPENS IS T HAT THE TRIBUNAL GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER FOR WHICH IT HAS NO POWERS UNDER THE STATUTE. THEREFORE ONCE THE RECTIFICATION APP LICATION FILED BY ONE OF THE PARTIES IS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE TRIBUN AL RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY ANOTHER RECTIFICATION APPLICATION ON THE SAME ISSUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AGAINST THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECT ION 254(2) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE KERALA HIGH C OURT THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE SECOND APPLICATION FILE D BY THE REVENUE ON THE ISSUE M.P. NO. 06/COCH/2014 3 WHICH WAS DECIDED EARLIER IN THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERIT OF THE MATTER THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS LIKE LY TO BE DISMISSED. 4. EVEN OTHERWISE WE NOTICE THAT THE PRESENT APPLIC ATION HAS BEEN FILED ON 24.01.2014 AND THE ORIGINAL ORDER WAS PASSED ON 28. 08.2008. SINCE THE PRESENT APPLICATION IS FILED BEYOND FOUR YEARS FROM THE DAT E OF PASSING OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS BAR BY LIMITATION IN TERMS OF SEC. 254(2) OF THE ACT. 5. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS WE DISMISS THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 04-04-2014. SD/- SD/- N.R.S.GANESAN) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 4TH APRIL 2014 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. NAMBIATHKUDY AGRO INDUSTRIES KOOVAPADY P.O . PERMBAVOOR-683 544. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCL E-1 ALUVA 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-II KOCH I. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX KOCHI. 5. D.R. I.T.A.T. COCHIN BENCH COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T COCHIN