The Commr. Of Income Tax-Iv v. M/S Vikas Sortex, Kudwa Lane

93cat16.12.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Civil Application (cao) Nos. 16 of 2012 (In ITL No. 132/07) and 163 of 2012 (In ITL No. 148/07) The Commr. Of Income Tax-IV ...Versus... M/s Vikas Sortex, Kudwa Lane Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's ordersor directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Anand Parchure Advocate for Applicant. Mr. N.S. Bhattad Advocate for Respondent. … CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED: 09.03.2012. Heard. Income Tax Appeal Nos. 132/07 and 148/07 were earlier disposed of on 2.7.2007 because of judgment of this Court in CIT, Mumbai v. M/s Vitesee Trading Ltd. and Board Circular dated 5.6.2007. Thereafter Civil Application Nos. 5326/07 and 5327/07 were moved and after hearing respective counsel by common order dated 11.9.2007 those orders were recalled and the appeals were restored to file for consideration on merits. These two appeals along with Income Tax Appeal No. 174/07 were then listed before the Court on 23.9.2009 and were admitted on 93cat16.12.odt substantial questions of law dealing with the nature of activities and relevance of Section 801B of the Income Tax Act. Learned counsel for the Assessee waived notice of admission. It appears that thereafter the matters were again listed before this Court on 27.8.2010 and on that day the counsel for the Revenue sought liberty to withdraw the appeal and it was granted. Revenue sought liberty to withdraw the appeal By the present civil applications, prayer is to recall the said order and restore the appeals to file for final hearing. Contention is, the fact that the matters were already admitted were lost sight of and the earlier disposal also could not be pointed out. Shri Bhattad is opposing the prayer. According to him, a conscious decision to withdraw the appeal was taken on 27.8.2010 and in present set of facts, there is no question of considering the tax effect at all. However, we find it improper not to accept the statement of Advocate Parchure that orders dated 23.9.2009 admitting the appeals could not be pointed out or that the fact that small tax effect was not relevant could not be pressed into service. The appeals filed by the Revenue were admitted. Looking to the question framed it is apparent that the question is of recurring nature, insofar as present assessee is concerned. Hence, we recall the orders dated 27.9.2010 and restore ITL Nos. 132/07 and 93cat16.12.odt /TA/ 148/07 to file. Shri Bhattad waives notice in both the appeal after restoration. Judge Judge