Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6 v. Mewat Zincs Pvt. Ltd

Delhi High Court · 25 Jul 2017
S. Muralidhar; Prathiba M. Singh
ITA 571/2016
tax appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that the ITAT's order recalling its earlier order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was not challenged, attained finality and could not be questioned subsequently.

Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ITA 571/2016
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 ..... Appellant
Through; Mr. Puneet Rai with Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocates.
VERSUS
MEWAT ZINCS PVT. LTD Respondent
Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate.
ITA 572/2016
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 Appellant
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai with Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocates.
VERSUS
MEWAT ZINCS PVT. LTD. Respondent
Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
25.07.2017
ORDER

1. The present appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') challenge the order dated 12^'' January, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA Nos. 1622 and 2216/Del/2006 for the Assessment Years ('AYs')1996-97 and 1997-98 respectively.

2. The point sought to be urged by the Revenue is that whether the ITAT 2017:DHC:8924-DB could have, under Section 254(2) ofthe Income Tax Act, reviewed its earlier order dated 6'^ February, 2009 whereby it had allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue and partly allowed the cross objections filed by the Assessee.

3. It appears that after the above order dated 6^*^ February, 2009 was passed by the ITAT, the-Assessee filed appHcations before the ITAT being M.A. No. 178 & 179/De|/2009 under Section 254(2) of the Act. The said applications came to be allowed by order dated 24^*^ April, 2009 and the ITAT recalled its earlier order dated 6'^ February, 2009. Thus, the appeals filed by the Revenue were again set down for hearing together with the cross-objections filed by the Assessee.

4. Strangely, the order dated 24'*^ April, 2009, which is an order under Section 254(2) of the Act, was never challenged by the Revenue and has, therefore, attained finality. Since the order dated 24^ April, 2009 was never challenged before this Court, it is obvious that the said issue cannot now be raised at a stage, when after the restoration of the appeals of the Revenue and the cross-objections ofthe Assessee, the ITAT has even disposed ofthe restored appeals and cross-objections afresh, by the impugned order. The question urged by the Revenue in these appeals, therefore, does not arise.

5. The appeals are dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J PRATHIBA M. J JULY 25,2017 srb O.iVlUK