News Update

GST - Neither SCN nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, hence cannot be sustained: HCGST - Non-application of mind - If reply was unsatisfactory, details could have been sought - Record does not reflect that such exercise was done - Matter remitted: HCGST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period does not mean that registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HCGST - Petitioner's reply, although terse, is not taken into account while passing assessment orders - Petitioner put on terms, another opportunity provided: HCUnveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Notorious history-sheeter Mukhtar Ansari succumbs to cardiac arrest in UP jailTraining Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieNY imposes USD 15 congestion taxCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silver45 killed as bus races into ravine in South AfricaCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayBankman-Fried jailed for 25 yrs in FTX scamI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesI-T- Secured creditor has priority charge over secured asset, over claims of I-T Department & other Departments; any excess amount recovered by Secured Creditor from auction of secured asset, over & above the dues payable to it, are to be remitted to the Departments: HCFederal Govt hands out USD 60 mn to rebuild collapsed bridge in BaltimoreI-T - Receipts of sale of scrap being part & parcel of activity and being proximate thereto would also be within ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IB: HCCanadian School Boards sue social media titans for 4 bn Canadian dollar in damagesI-T - Once assssee on year of reversal has paid taxes on excess provision and similar feature appeared in earlier years and assesee had payments for liquidated damages on delay of deliverables, no adverse inference can be drawn: HCFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerST - Software development service & IT-enabled service provided by assessee was exempt from tax during relevant period, by virtue of CBEC's Notification & Circular; demands raised for such period not sustainable: CESTATUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayCus - Order rejecting exporter's request for conversion of Shipping Bills on grounds that the same has been made by exporter beyond period of three months from date of Let Export Order in terms of CBEC Circular No. 36/2010-Cus : CESTATIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEACus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTATThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCX - As per settled law, a right acquired as result of a statutory provision, cannot be taken away retrospectively unless said statutory provision so provides or by necessary implication has such effect: CESTAT
 
Income tax - Whether if an assessee once accepts a judicial order, it is not open to it to assail same for reasons that different decisions were subsequently rendered on same issue - YES: HC

By TIOL News Service

Income Tax Department

MUMBAI, FEB 027, 2015: THE issue before the Bench is - Whether if an assessee once accepts a judicial order, it is not open to it to assail the same for reasons that different decisions were subsequently rendered on the same issue. YES is the answer.

Facts of the case

The Tribunal's order for the AY 2003-04 was received by the applicant on 26.11.2008. The plea of the applicant before the Tribunal was inter-alia in regard to the principle of mutuality in regard to transfer fees received by the applicant. The Tribunal following the decision of the Special Bench in the Case of "Walkeshwar Triveni Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO, (267 ITR (AT) 86)" dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicants. The applicant states that as their claim was rejected by three Authorities viz. the AO, CIT(A) as also the Tribunal and there was no judgment of the jurisdictional High Court favouring the applicant, the Officer bearers of the applicant decided not to carry the matter further.

However in the applicant's own case for the AY 2007-08, the Tribunal, by an order dated 11.1.2013 held in favour of the applicant by following the judgment of this court in the case of "Sind Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,
2009-TIOL-366-HC-MUM-IT and the decision in the case of "Mittal Premises Cooperative Society Ltd., 2009-TIOL-548-HC-MUM-IT" which was delivered in the meantime. The applicant, therefore, filed a Miscellaneous Application on 3.5.2013 before the Tribunal for the AY 2003-04 praying for setting aside the order dated 31.10.2008 on the ground that the Tribunal should follow the decisions in the case of "Sind Co-operative Housing Society Ltd." and "Mittal Premises Co-operative Society Ltd." and rectify its decision dated 31.10.2008. By an order dated 7.2.2014, this Miscellaneous Application came to be rejected by the Tribunal. The applicant, therefore, decided to prefer this appeal u/s 260A of the Act to assail the judgment dated 31.10.2008 passed by the Tribunal for the AY 2003-04. The last date to file the appeal was 24.4.2009 and the same came to be filed by the applicants on 29.4.2014 after a delay of about five years which is sought to be condoned by this Notice of Motion.

Having heard the matter, the High Court held that,

++ the issue which falls for consideration is whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause so as to become entitled for condonation of delay of five years in preferring the appeal against the order dated 31.10.2008 passed by the Tribunal. Admittedly at the relevant time the applicant had accepted the orders passed by the Tribunal on the ground that three Authorities have decided against it. The applicant was completely conscious of the fact that there was no decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in regard to the said issue. This was more a reason for the applicant to pursue the proceedings. The applicant, however, accepted the orders passed by the Tribunal and decided not to pursue the proceedings. In the meantime this Court had decided the same in favour of the applicant in the case of "Sind Cooperative Housing Society Ltd." and "Mittal Co-operative Society Ltd." The Tribunal applying the law laid down in these decisions decided in favour of the applicant by an order dated 11.1.2013 passed for the AY 2007-08. The Tribunal deciding in favour of the applicant for the subsequent years, applying the decisions of this Court, would not ensure to the benefit of the applicant to reopen the issue concluded by the Orders dated 31.10.2008 passed by the Tribunal and accepted by the applicant. The delay is inordinate;

++ the reasons as shown by the applicant cannot fall within the parameters of sufficient cause so as to confer a benefit of condonation to the applicant. This is for the reason that the applicant had taken a well considered decision not to move further proceedings against the order dated 31.10.2008. Applying the test of a prudent litigant it cannot be held that once the applicant by his own volition had decided to accept a judicial order, the applicant can at any time assail the same may be for the reason that subsequently new decisions are rendered on that issue. Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be stretched to bring about a situation of unsettling judicial decisions which stood accepted by the parties. If the contention of the applicant is accepted, it would create a situation of chaos and unsettling various orders passed from time to time by the Tribunal as accepted by the parties. The legislative mandate in stipulating a limitation to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation cannot be permitted to be defeated when a litigant has taken a decision not to pursue further proceedings. A new ruling is no ground for reviewing a previous judgment. If this is permitted, the inevitable consequence is confusion, chaos, uncertainty and inconvenience as then no orders can ever attain finality though accepted by parties;

++ only because the applicant has succeeded on the same issue for the AY 2008-09, the same cannot be said to be a sufficient cause so as to condone the delay of five years for the applicant to approach this Court in filing the appeal. In the light of the above observations, the applicant has not shown sufficient cause in seeking condonation of delay.

(See 2015-TIOL-510-HC-MUM-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023