What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Revenue's challenge to the ITAT's power to review its order was not maintainable. This was because the order allowing the review application under Section 254(2) was not challenged by the Revenue and had attained finality.

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that reviewed its earlier decision. The Assessee had filed applications under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act to recall the ITAT's previous order. The ITAT allowed these applications, recalling its earlier order.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT could review its earlier order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Whether the Revenue could raise an issue that was decided by an order that had attained finality.

PCIT vs M/S Mewat Zincs Pvt. Ltd | Delhi High Court 2017

$~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

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

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments