Madras High Court
The Principal Commissioner Of vs M/S.Challani Ranka Jewellery on 31 July, 2019
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
1 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 31.7.2019 Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.424 of 2019 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central I, Chennai-34. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Challani Ranka Jewellery, Chennai-79. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 02.1.2019 made in MP.No.163/Chny/2018 in ITA.No.3066/ Chny/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2012-13.
For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC & Ms.K.G.Usharani, SC
For Respondent: Mr.R.Sivaraman
Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel as well as Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2
2. This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) against the order dated 02.1.2019 made in MP.No.163/Chny/2018 in ITA.No.3066/Chny/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2012-13.
3. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law :
“i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in recalling its earlier order passed on merits after the assessee entered appearance during the hearing of the appeal without taking cognizance of the jurisdictional High Court's judgments in the cases of Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. DCIT [reported in 320 ITR 12] and Vyline Glass Works Ltd. Vs. ACWT [reported in 373 ITR 355] ? and ii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in not following its own earlier order in the case of Technip India Ltd. Vs. ACIT [reported in 83 Taxmann.com 404] wherein it was held in the context of Section 254 that the Tribunal cannot recall the entire order and give a fresh decision and the power to rectify a mistake under Section 254(2) cannot be used for recalling the entire order?” http://www.judis.nic.in 3
4. In our considered view, there is no necessity to decide the substantial questions of law for two reasons. Firstly, the order impugned in this appeal has worked itself out in the sense that on account of a subsequent order passed by the Tribunal, the matter has now been remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration/verification. The second reason being that the Revenue has not filed any appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration. Thus, we hold that the appeal has become academic.
5. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is closed leaving it open to the parties to work out their remedies before the Assessing Officer.
Consequently, the substantial questions of law are left open. No costs.
31.7.2019 Internet: Yes To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench.
RS http://www.judis.nic.in 4 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.No.424 of 2019 31.7.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in