9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present appeal relates to the assessment year 2001-2002. Against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax, both the Department and the assessee filed appeals in I.T.T.A.No. 793/HYD/2007 and I.T.A.No. 792/HYD/2007 respectively before the Tribunal. So far as the Departmental appeal is concerned, the Tribunal, while dismissing it held that the Department could not prosecute the same without obtaining sanction from the Committee on Disputes (C.O.D) of the Central Government which was held to be mandatory at the relevant point of time in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Electronics Corp. of India v. Union of India & Ors. and gave liberty to the Department to seek revival of the appeal after obtaining necessary sanctio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter, no application was made before the C.O.D. seeking its approval to prosecute the appeal. The order of the first appellate authority which is the subject matter of the present appeal is dated 30.04.2007. In normal circumstances, immediately after the order passed by the first appellate authority or within a reasonable time, the appellant ought to have made an application to the C.O.D. seeking permission to prosecute the appeal as it was a mandatory requirement by virtue of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court (supra) in Civil appeal No. 1883 of 2011. Admittedly, no application was made. The present Miscellaneous Application came to be filed by the appellant on noticing the judgment dated 17.02.2011 of the Apex Court (supra) where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is belated. Further, even on the ground of the absence of diligence shown in approaching the Tribunal to recall the order, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. It may be noted that in taxation matters, a citizen is entitled to have certainty with regard to his or her liability and the issues which were settled long back should not be reopened as it would lead to upsetting the entire financial planning of the individuals who would have accepted orders/judgments as final and arranged their affairs based on the orders/situations prevailing at the relevant point of time. On the above analysis, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Hence, this appeal is devoid of meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
