TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate Bank of India (SBI) challenges the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 6th June, 2012, disposing of Income Tax Appeal No. 3145/Mum/2009, for assessment year 2006-07. 3) During the pendency of this Appeal, the Tribunal has passed an order on the Miscellaneous Application and therefore, Mr. Jasani had sought time to take instructions as to whether the State Bank of India is ready and willing for disposal of the present Appeal in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal subsequently and on the above Miscellaneous Application. 4) However, Mr. Jasani submits that by the order dated 4th June, 2014, what the Tribunal has done is to revive the Income Tax Appeal No. 3145 of 2009 for hearing afresh on merits in relation to withdrawal o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice of the Tribunal that the ground in respect of withdrawal of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act of Rs. 405,17,20,944/in relation to standard assets was raised in the Memo of Appeal. The Tribunal's attention was invited to para 3 of its earlier order dated 6th June, 2012, from which, this Miscellaneous Application arose. The Tribunal has merely followed its order for the preceding assessment year 2005-06 and upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, which is the complaint. However, what the Tribunal was called upon to consider in the Miscellaneous Application is that the Commissioner in assessment year 2005-06 has not decided the ground on merits but directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reason that in this year the Commissioner has passed order after discussing merits and therefore, the earlier Tribunal's order will not apply in this year. The Tribunal proceeds to reject this argument and thereafter directs revival of the Appeal only for the purpose of raising the ground of withdrawal of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act. 9) We are not happy in the manner in which the Tribunal has decided the Miscellaneous Application. If the Tribunal was required to devote so much time for assigning reasons in more than five paragraphs in a lengthy eight page order on the Miscellaneous Application so as to correct an obvious mistake by exercising powers under section 254(2) of the IT Act, then, interest of justice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unds raised in the Appeal and in their entirety. It omitted from consideration crucial documentary material as well. In such circumstances, such partial revival of the Appeal would not meet the ends of justice. 11) We modify the order passed on the Miscellaneous Application and direct that the Appeal shall now be heard on its own merits and in accordance with law, permitting the Assessee to raise all grounds that are to be found in the Memo of Appeal. The Tribunal shall apply its mind afresh to the contentions raised by both sides and uninfluenced by its prior observations and conclusions and dispose of the Appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law. This direction issued by us in the exercise of our further appellate and inhere....