TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants Misc. App, orders fresh hearing due to failure to consider retrospective amendment & lack of opportunity</h1> <h3>Patel Engineering Ltd. Versus DCIT 8 (2) Mumbai</h3> Patel Engineering Ltd. Versus DCIT 8 (2) Mumbai - TMI Issues:Recall of ITAT order dated 18.08.2017 for AY 2002-03 based on contentions of Ld. counsel and DR; Applicability of retrospective amendment to Explanation 1 to S. 115JB of the Act; Binding effect of Co-ordinate Bench's order on other benches; Consideration of decisions not discussed during hearing; Mistake apparent from record; Opportunity of being heard; Application of clause (iic) inserted by Finance Act, 2015; Followed decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court; Recall of order and fresh hearing before regular Bench.Analysis:The applicant filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking the recall of the ITAT order dated 18.08.2017 for AY 2002-03. The Ld. counsel contended that the issue in the present case is identical to a previous case and that the Tribunal had decided in favor of the assessee based on the retrospective nature of the amendment to Explanation 1 to S. 115JB of the Act introduced by the Finance Act, 2015. The applicant argued that the Tribunal's decision in the case of Goldgerg Finance (P) Ltd. for AY 2009-10 should be followed, as it considered the retrospective nature of the amendment. Additionally, the applicant emphasized the binding effect of the Co-ordinate Bench's order on other benches unless reversed by Superior Courts, citing relevant case laws. The applicant also raised concerns about certain decisions not discussed during the hearing and the lack of opportunity to address those issues, pointing out a mistake apparent from the record.During the proceedings, the Ld. DR opposed the recall, asserting that the Tribunal's decision was error-free after thorough deliberation. However, upon examination, it was noted that the Tribunal had failed to consider the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Goldgerg Finance (P.) Ltd. for AY 2009-10, which had established the retrospective nature of the amendment to Explanation 1 to section 115JB. The Tribunal's reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court was found to be inapplicable to the assessment year 2002-03. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake in not allowing the Ld. counsel to address this discrepancy and consequently decided to recall the order and set the appeal for a fresh hearing before a regular Bench.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application, recalling the order dated 18.08.2017 and directing a fresh hearing before a regular Bench. The decision was based on the failure to consider the retrospective nature of the amendment to Explanation 1 to section 115JB and the lack of opportunity for the Ld. counsel to present arguments regarding relevant decisions. The Tribunal's adherence to legal principles and the need for a fair hearing underscored the importance of rectifying errors and ensuring due process in tax matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
