THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. BIRLA ERICSON OPTICAL LTD.REWA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/125/2012HC Madhya PradeshMPHC01035523201225 January 20172 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the order dated March 27, 2012, stands disposed of. This is because the said order has been recalled by the ITAT through a subsequent order passed on June 14, 2016, in proceedings under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that the subsequent order has reconsidered and decided certain questions afresh. Consequently, the Revenue is now required to challenge the order dated June 14, 2016, by filing a fresh appeal. The department has been granted liberty to file a fresh appeal in accordance with law, incorporating the subsequent developments and reframing the questions of law. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II (appellant) against Birla Ericson Optical Ltd. (respondent) for an assessment year not specified. The appeal challenged an order dated March 27, 2012, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Jabalpur in ITA No.156/JAB/2006. However, the ITAT reconsidered its order of March 27, 2012, through a miscellaneous application filed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, on June 14, 2016, the ITAT passed a fresh order disposing of the appeal. The present appeal, which challenged the earlier order, was thus rendered infructuous due to these subsequent developments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable in light of the subsequent order passed by the ITAT recalling its earlier order and passing a fresh order. (Question of law) The Revenue contended that the order impugned in the present appeal, dated March 27, 2012, has been recalled by the ITAT. A fresh order was passed on June 14, 2016, following proceedings under Section 254(2) of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue argued that the present appeal is no longer relevant and that they are required to challenge the subsequent order dated June 14, 2016, by filing a fresh appeal after amending the memorandum of appeal and reframing the questions of law. The Respondent did not record any arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2),Section 256(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-125-2012 (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II Vs BIRLA ERICSON OPTICAL LTD.REWA) 25-01-2017 Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sapan Usrete, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. It is brought on record that even though this appeal is admitted and is pending consideration but the order passed on 27.3.2012 in ITA No.156/JAB/2006 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Jabalpur was reconsidered by the same tribunal in a miscellaneous application filed under Section 254(2) of ITAT and the order passed on 27.3.2012 impugned in this appeal has been recalled and, thereafter in the proceedings held under Section 254(2) of the Act, another order has been passed on 14.6.2016 disposing of the appeal in terms of the aforesaid order. That being so, as the order impugned in this appeal dated 27.3.2012 stands recalled and as certain question having bearing have been reconsidered and decided afresh, now the department is required to challenge the order passed on 14.6.2016 after proceedings were held under Section 256 (2) of the Act by amending the memorandum of appeal and reframing the question of law. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this appeal stands disposed of and liberty is granted to the department to file a fresh appeal in accordance with law in view of the change circumstances that have come on record by virtue of the order passed on 14.6.2016 under Section 256(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal in the light of the fact that due to subsequent developments, the department is now to file a fresh appeal after incorporating the subsequent developments and reframing the question of law. With the aforesaid, this appeal stands disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (H.P. SINGH) JUDGE nd

More judgments on Section 256(2)

All 253 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →