Ita/828/2011 Of Royal Exports v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

"/o [L3,O7.2OLL] Present:Mr. R.M. Mehta, Advocate for the appellant/assessee.Ms. Suruchi Agarwal,Advocate for therespondent/Revenue. + tTA 828/201 1 This appeal pertains to assessment year 2005-06 and is filedagainst the orders of the Tribunal passed on 20th December, 2010dismissing the appeal of the appellant and taking a view thatinterest income on account of FDR shall be excluded whilecalculating the deduction under Section 10-A/10-B of the lncomeTax Act (hereinafter would be referred to as ['the ]Act') {ra Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellantsubmits that identical question had arisen in respect of assessmentyear 2004-05 which was decided by the Tribunal against theappellant. Against that order of the Tribunal, the appellant had filedappeal under Section 260-A of the Act being ITA 73012010. The saidappeal was disposed of vide orders dated 12th 1uly, 2010 settingaside the order of the Tribunal and remitting the case back to theTribunal for fresh adjudication with the directions that the Tribunalshall take the factual scenario into consideration and the law in thefield and pass apposite and reasoned order. -1' Predicated on the aforesaid order of this Court, the appellantmoved an application in the instant appeal also before the Tribunalmoved an application in the instant appeal also before the Tribunalfor consolidation of the two appeals and requested for adjournmentin the mean time. The grievance is that the Tribunal did notconsider the prayer made in the said application which was bonain the mean time. The grievance is that the Tribunal did notconsider the prayer made in the said application which was bonafide and genuine and proceeded to decide the matter. lt iscontended that in the process the Tribunal fell into the same erroras once again neither the facts are takgn into.consideration nor theas once again neither the facts are takgn into.consideration nor thelaw on the issue which the appellant wanted to rely upon and which Signature Not Verified -?-' "4-lt is noted by this Court in its order dated [12th ]July, [2OIL ][passed ][in ] 730120L0. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is silent about thefiling of such an application for consolidation [and ][adjournment ][of]the case. There is no whisper about this application and, [therefore,]one is not able to discern as to whether such [an ][application ][was]pressed for hearing when the appeal was listed. ln these circumstances, we are of the opinion that appropriatecourse of action for the appellant would be to move an applicationunder Section 254 (2) of the Act. The learned counsel for theappellant accordingly pressed for withdrawal of this appeal with theliberty to file that application and in case occasion arises,depending upon the order, that would be passed in the saidapplication, approach this Court again challenging the impugnedorder. The present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with theaforesaid liberty to the appellant.aforesaid liberty to the appellant. SIKRI, 6^nlu.M.L.MEHTA, J, Jufy [L3,?OLL]skb