Wp(C)/18381/2009 Of P.rama Rao v. Regr.,Income Tax App

Order No. 03. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18381 of 2009 …. P. Rama Rao Petitioner Mr. J.M. Pattanaik, Advocate -versus- Registrar, Income Tax Appellate …. Opposite Parties Tribunal and Others Mr. T.K. Satapathy, Senior Standing Counsel CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA ORDER 23.11.2021 1. The challenge in the present petition is to three orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The first is an order dated 20[th] August, 2004 passed by the ITAT in ITA No.389/CTK/2004 for the assessment year (AY) 1993-1994. By the said order, the ITAT dismissed the Petitioner Assessee’s appeal. 2. Thereafter, the present Petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Application in M.A. No.28/CTK/2007 and that Miscellaneous Application was disposed of by an order dated 2[nd] September, 2008. Agreeing with the Petitioner that the word “not had been omitted by quoting Section 263 (1)(c)”, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) the ITAT modified its order dated 20[th] August, 2004 in ITA No.389/CTK/2004. However, the ITAT declined to recall the order since that would amount to revision/review and the ITAT had no power of revision. This is the second order challenged in the present petition. 3. The Petitioner then filed an application dated 12[th] November, 2008 under Section 254 (2) of the Act in the ITAT. When that was not taken up for hearing, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.17276 of 2008 in this Court against the said order. The writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court by an order dated 2[nd] December, 2008 with that direction the ITAT should dispose of the Petitioner’s aforementioned application dated 12[th] November, 2008 within a period of two months. 4. This led the ITAT to again pass another order on 27[th] February, 2009 dismissing the aforementioned application on the ground that the ITAT had no power to review its order. This order too has been challenged in the present petition. 5. The net result of all the above orders is that despite the ITAT acknowledging that it made a crucial mistake in its original order dated 20[th] August 2004, it did not recall that original order. It also negatived the Petitioner’s attempts at getting the ITAT to pass the consequential corrective order. 6. Mr. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue (Opposite Parties), raised a preliminary objection that against all of the above orders, the Petitioner should have filed an appeal before this Court under Section 260A of the Act and that this writ petition should not be entertained. 7. Considering that the writ petition has been pending in this Court since last twelve years and already earlier writ petitions have been entertained by this Court arising out of the same proceedings, the Court does not find it appropriate to require the Petitioner to file a separate appeal in this Court for the same relief at this stage. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court sets aside the original order dated 20[th] August, 2004 passed by the ITAT as well as the subsequent order dated 27[th] February, 2009 and restores the appeal i.e. ITA No.389/CTK/2004 to the file of the ITAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the ITAT by the Registry of this Court forthwith. 9. The aforementioned appeal i.e. ITA No.389/CTK/2004 shall be listed before the ITAT for directions on 3[rd] January, 2022. 10. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice S.K. Jena/P.A. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge