THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. M/S MEWAT ZINCS PVT. LTD.

$~10&11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 3 + 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 ORDER % 25.07.2017 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 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

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