Itta/264/2008 Of Nalgonda Diocese Society v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL [NO: ][264 ] [2008] lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under [Section ][2604 ][of ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act,1961]against the Order dated l6tO5t2OOB [passed ][in ] [No.1166iHYD/2006 ][for ][the]Aisessment [year ]2003-2004 [on the file ][of the ][lncome ][Tax ][Appellate ][Tribunal,]Hyderabad Bench ['A', ]Hyderabad. .. Between: NALGONDA DIOCESE SOCIETY, [Nalgonda ][Pan [l189Q]] ...APPELLANT AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER [TAX, ][Exemption] [- ][2, Hyderabad] ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: Counselforthe Respondent: The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AI{D THE HOI{'BLE I.T.T.A.No.264 OF 2OO8 MET{T:(per Hon'ble Si Justice P.Sdm Koshlt) Heard Ms.Vaishanavi Ambadipudi, [learned ][Counsel ][representing] Mr.S.Ravi, [learned counsel ][for the ][appellant ][ald ][Mr.A.Rama ][Krishna]Reddy, [learned Standing ][Counsel ][for the ][Income ][Tax ][Department]appearing [for the ][resPondent.] The instant appeal has been hled being aggrieved instant appeal has been hled being aggrieved appeal has been hled being aggrieved has been hled being aggrieved been hled being aggrieved hled being aggrieved aggrieved by the the [[order]] 2. The instant appeal has been hled being aggrieved instant appeal has been hled being aggrieved appeal has been hled being aggrieved has been hled being aggrieved been hled being aggrieved hled being aggrieved aggrieved by the the [[order]]dated [16.05.2008 ][passed ][by ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Appellate Tribuna-l (for ][-]short [the ][Tribunal) ][in ][I.T.A.No.1166 ]IHYD/2006, [for the ][assessment]year 2OO3-O4-3. The order under challenge before the Tribunal was the [one]passed by [the ][Commissioner ][of ][Income ][Tax ][(Appeals)-IV, Hyderabad](for short [(Appeals), ][dated ][26.09.2006, ][pertaining ][to ][the]assessment [year 2003-04.]4. Perusal of the documents enclosed along with the instant [appeal]we frnd [that ][against ][the ][order ][passed ][by ][the ] [(Appeals), ][dated]26.09.2006, [there were ][appeals ][liled on ][behalf ][of both ][sides. ][The]assessee [had ][preferred ][an ][appeal ][which was ][registered ][as]I.T.A.No.lL57 IHYD/2006; [whereas, ][the ][Revenue ][had ][preferred ][an] \\ \ appeal that was registered as I.T.A.No. Il66/HyD/2006. However, both these appeals instead of being tagged/clubbed together andheard analogously after registration went for hearing before twodifferent Benches of the Tribunal. The appeal of the assessee carne upbefore the Bench B' and appeal of the Revenue carne up for hearingbefore the bench A'.5. The appeal of the assessee carne up for hearing earlier and itstood decided by the Tribuna,l Bench ts'on 04.04.2008. Surprisingly,the Revenue/department did not disclose the fact that they have alsoalready preferred an appeal against the same order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 26.09.2006 and which is pending. The Tribunal Bench'El'ignorant of the other appeal allowed the appeal of the assessee on04.o4.200a. 6. Much subsequently,. the appeal preferred by the Revenuepending before Bench A' came up for hearing on 16.05.2009,unfortunately, again neither the Revenue nor the assessee informedthe Bench A' about the appeal which was filed by the assessee andwhich stood decided by the Bench B'on O4.04.2008 and the Revenueappeal also went on to be decided in favour of the Revenue vide theimpugned order dated 16.05.2008. 7. Today, in the course of hearing, we hnd that there were twoorders passed by the Tribunal, ofcourse by two different Benches, but 6. Much subsequently,. the appeal preferred by the Revenuepending before Bench A' came up for hearing on 16.05.2009,unfortunately, again neither the Revenue nor the assessee informedthe Bench A' about the appeal which was filed by the assessee andwhich stood decided by the Bench B'on O4.04.2008 and the Revenueappeal also went on to be decided in favour of the Revenue vide theimpugned order dated 16.05.2008. 7. Today, in the course of hearing, we hnd that there were twoorders passed by the Tribunal, ofcourse by two different Benches, but the order under challenge before the two Benches happened to be thesame i.e., the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) dated 26.09.2006. Theappeal which stood decided first is on O4.O4.2OOg i.e., the appeal ofthe assessee in I.T.A.No.1157/HyD/2006 has gone unchallenged.Thereafter, by efflux of time, the same has to be accepted to haveattained frnality. In the teeth of lirst order of the Tribunal having byefflux of time attained finality, we' are of the considered opinion thatthe subsequent order of the Bench A' of the Tribunal in the course ofdeciding the appeal frled by the Revenue i.e.,LT.A.No. l166/HYD/2OO6, becomes inconsequentia-l at this juncture,even though the learned dtroang counsel argues for remitting thematter back to the Tribunal in the light of the two conflicting viewspassed by the two Benches of the Tribunal. we are unable to acceptthe said contention for the simple reason that though the instaltappeal is of the year 2OO8 and today we are in March 2025, theRevenge did not come to challenge the same either promptly orpending the appeal till date. 8. Therefore, in the factual matrix of the case, undisputedly, theappeal which has been decided Iirst by the Tribunal i.e., the orderdated 04.04.2008 and the order passed in the said appeal is onewhich would prevail and the subsequent order passed by Bench A,ofthe Tribunal on 16.O5.20O8 would automatically lose its significalce. ( 9 . This observation that we have made is subject to verihcation whether the Revenue has infact preferred an appeal against the orderdated O4.O4.2OO8.The present appeal therefore stands allowed. As aconsequence, the impugned order under challenge stalds set aside. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shallstand closed. sD/- M. VIJAYA BHASKERJOINT REGIST.RAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1- The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad, 2. One CC to SRl. S RAVI Advocate 3. One CC to SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Advocate 4. Two CD Copies TPK/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2610312025 JUDGMENTITTA.No.264 of 2008 ITTA IS ALLOWED xril-d, '::..a-::- ' 7. [.'/1t.1 ][\ ][t: ][-: ]"t [r]' (."aa121IIJBMa-\,/rilis [1'A- ]rr',LO