Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -6 v. Mewat Zincs Pvt. Ltd

$~10&11*IN THE HIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI 3 +ITA 571/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 ..... Appellant Through;Mr. Puneet Rai with Mr. RuchirBhatia, Advocates. versus MEWAT ZINCS PVT. LTD Respondent Through:Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate. +ITA 572/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6AppellantThrough:Mr. Puneet Rai with Mr. RuchirBhatia, Advocates. versus MEWAT ZINCS PVT. LTD.RespondentThrough:Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER%25.07.2017 1. The presentappealsby the Revenueunder Section260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 ('Act')challengethe order dated 12^'' January,2016 passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA Nos. 1622 and2216/Del/2006 for the Assessment Years ('AYs') 1996-97 and 1997-98respectively. 2. The point soughtto be urged by the Revenue is that whetherthe ITAT could have, under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, reviewed its earlierorder dated 6'^ February,2009 wherebyit had allowedthe appealsfiled bythe Revenue and partly allowed the cross objections filed by the Assessee. 3. Itthat afterthe above order dated 6^*^2009 was appears February, passedby the ITAT, the-Assessee filed appHcations before the ITAT being M.A.No. 178 & 179/De|/2009 under Section 254(2) of the Act. The saidapplicationscame to be allowed by order dated 24^*^ April, 2009 and theITAT recalledits earlierorder dated 6'^ February,2009. Thus, the appealsfiled by the Revenue were again set down for hearing together with thecross-objections filed by the Assessee. 4. Strangely, the order dated 24'*^ April, 2009, which is an order underSection 254(2) of the Act, was never challenged by the Revenue and has,therefore,attainedfinality.Sincethe orderdated24^ April,2009 was neverchallengedbeforethis Court,it is obviousthatthe said issue cannotnow beraised at a stage, when after the restorationof the appeals of the Revenueand the cross-objectionsofthe Assessee,the ITAT has even disposedoftherestoredappeals and cross-objectionsafresh, by the impugnedorder. Thequestionurgedby the Revenuein theseappeals,therefore,doesnot arise. 5. The appealsare dismissed. SOiVlUK.MURALIDHAR,J JULY 25,2017srb PRATHIBA M.J