Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Hyderabad Race Club,

Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No. 115 of 2013

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar ….. Appellant

Mr. R. Chinmanka, Sr. Standing Counsel, [Income Tax]

Vs. M/s Orissa Forestry Sector Development Society, Bhubaneswar ….. Respondent Mr. J. Sahu, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. R. Ghose, Adv.

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER 21.08.2023 Order No. 09.

This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. R. Chinmanka, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department appearing for the appellant and Mr. J. Sahu, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. R. Ghose, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The Income Tax Department has filed this appeal assailing the order dated 11.06.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in ITA No. 155/CTK/2013 for the assessment year 2008-09 stating therein that the issues in the appeal of the revenue are squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No. 465/CTK/2010 dated 21.01.2011, and following the said decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case based on which assessee’s appeal IT Appeal No.0093/2010-11 has been disposed of vide order dated 19.12.2012 by the CIT (Appeals)-II, Bhubaneswar. The Tribunal, against the said order, has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue. 4. Mr. R. Chinmanka, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department appearing for the appellant contended

Page 2 of 3 that the questions of law as have been taken in paragraph-6 of the appeal and grounds stated in paragraph-5 of this IT Appeal were argued before the Tribunal, but without taking into consideration of the same, the order impugned has been passed by the tribunal by dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant has approached this Court by preferring the present appeal. 5. Mr. J. Sahu, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. R. Ghose, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the 1st Appellate Authority taking into consideration the order passed by the tribunal for the Assessment Year 2007-08 in ITA No.465/CTK/2010 dated 21.01.2011, had allowed the appeal at the behest of the assessee and the appeal preferred by the appellant against said appellate order of the CIT (Appeal)-II, has been dismissed in terms of the Coordinate Bench decision of the Tribunal taken for the earlier assessment year. But fact remains, the order dated 21.01.2011 passed in assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No.465/CTK/2010 having been challenged in ITA No. 32 of 2011 and subsequently the same having been withdrawn by the Department on 19.06.2017, nothing more remains to be considered in the present appeal. As such, this appeal should be disposed of in terms of said withdrawal of appeal preferred by the Revenue. 6. At the outset, this Court finds that nothing has been placed by the Department as to what order was passed on 21.01.2011 by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No.465/CTK/2010 and what rival contention was raised by the parties. Rather, without assigning any reason, the matter has been disposed of in terms of the order passed in AY 2007-08 in ITA No. 465/CTK/2010 dated 21.01.2011. As such, against the said

Page 3 of 3 order, the Department preferred ITA No. 32 of 2011 and ultimately the same was withdrawn by the Department on 19.06.2017 in view of the circular issued by the CBDT specifying pecuniary limits for preferring appeal before this Court. Therefore, this Court has been kept in dark with regard to reasons assigned in the order dated 21.01.2011 passed in ITA No. 465/CTK/2010 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. Therefore, nothing can be adjudicated in the present appeal. Since no reason has been assigned in the order dated 11.06.2013, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the order dated 11.06.2013 passed in ITA No. 155/CTK/2013 relating to AY- 2008-09 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack to reconsider the appeal of the appellant-Revenue and pass appropriate order in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this appeal stands disposed of.

Ashok

(DR. B.R. SARANGI)

JUDGE

(M.S. RAMAN)

JUDGE

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 22-Aug-2023 16:25:33 Signature Not Verified