TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 647
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 07.08.2015. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner in the normal course of its business as a banker had received deposits from the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA in short), for different terms at fixed/contracted rates of interest to be paid by the Bank. The interest that thus became due was also paid by the Bank to the NOIDA. On these interest payments made by the petitioner did not make any taxdeduction- at source (T.D.S. in short). The revenue claims such deduction should have been made before making payments of interest, to NOIDA. Such obligation is stated to have arisen by virtue of Section 194A of the Act. The petitioner bank on its part claimed to be exempt from that liability by virtue of Section 194 A(3)(iii)(f) of the Act, it having made payments to NOIDA, perceived to be an authority established under an enactment of the State of U.P. 4. The petitioner's assessing authority differed in its understanding of the law and by order dated 28.02.2013 he passed an order under Section 201(1)/201(1A) read with Section 194A of the Act and declared the petitioner an assessee-in-default under the Act on account of nonded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no longer open to the CIT(Appeals) to revisit or reconsider his earlier order dated 02.12.2013 so as to reach different conclusion on the issue dealt with by the Tribunal. 9. Third, it has been submitted, in any case, the issue itself being debatable, that had been dealt with and decided in the Original Order dated 02.12.2013, even if it were to be assumed that some power of rectification survived on the CIT(Appeals), it would still fall outside the scope of jurisdiction of the CIT(Appeals) to make any alteration in the order dated 02.12.2013 being a wholly debatable issue. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balram, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay Vs. Volkart Brothers, Bombay reported in 1971 82 ITR 50 (SC). 10. Responding to the above submissions, Sri Manish Goyal would concede though as on date, the order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 02.12.2013 stands merged not only in the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal but as on date, it stands merged in the final judgment of the Supreme Court dated 02.08.2018. However, in those orders an important aspect of the matter had escaped consideration. Placing reliance on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made for development of certain areas in the State into industrial and urban township. Instead of enacting area-wise Industrial Area Development Acts, the U.P. Government enacted a common U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 to cover Authorities under different areas with its distinct name. But, for the creation of various area-wise authorities such as NOIDA and Ghaziabad Authorities, there is no other purpose of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. In other words, we can also say that this Act is nothing but a culmination of several area-wise Industrial Area Development Acts. Since NOIDA has been notified under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, we are of the considered opinion that the expression 'any corporation established by a State Act' shall include NOIDA (New Okhla Industrial Development Authority) in the given circumstances. We find that identical issue involving payment of interest by some banks to Ghaziabad Development Authority without tax withholding came up for consideration before the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Chief/Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. ITO. Vide its order dated 15.07.2011 in ITA No.2228/D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndertaken and completed (on 30.11.2015), after the order of the Tribunal dated 07.08.2015 had come into existence, was without jurisdiction. In Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359, the Supreme Court reasoned as under: "12. The logic underlying the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subject-matter at a given point of time. When a decree or order passed by an inferior court, tribunal or authority was subjected to a remedy available under the law before a superior forum then, though the decree or order under challenge continues to be effective and binding, nevertheless its finality is put in jeopardy. Once the superior court has disposed of the lis before it either way - whether the decree or order under appeal is set aside or modified or simply confirmed, it is the decree or order of the superior court, tribunal or authority which is the final, binding and operative decree or order wherein merges the decree or order passed by the court, tribunal or the authority below. However, the doctrine is not of universal or unlimited application. The nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties. (vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. (vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal having been converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain a review petition is lost thereafter as provided by subrule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC." 15. Therefore, applying that principle, on 30.11.2015, there did not exist any order of....