Full Judgment
The above-named appellant being aggrieved by the order of ITAT No. ITA/461/Ind/1995 dated 7-2-2003 for assessment year 1991-92 prefer this appeal as under :
Facts in brief
The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a regd. firm being assessed to Income Tax for many years. The assessee-firm submitted its return of income on 31-10-1991 declaring total income at Rs. 3,89,029. The assessee-firm also filed the copies of Trading and profit and loss account and balance sheet.
Shri R.L. Jain, LC for the revenue is heard on the question of admission of the appeal which has been preferred under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 7-2-2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'ITAT'), Indore Bench, Indore, In I.T.A. 461/Ind/1995 relating to the assessment year 1991-92 and C.O. No. 35/Ind/95 (arising out of I.T.A. No. 461/Ind/95 relating to the assessment year 1991-92). Learned counsel for the revenue brought to out, notice the extract of the decision of the Supreme Court between the same parties in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 159 of 2002 and R.P. No. 198 of 2002 dated 18-1-2002. The extract has been reproduced in CIT v. Madras Race Club (2002) 255 ITR 991 under the heading 'From Our Reporter at the Supreme Court'. As per the extract, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that additions made on account of sales and purchases made in the market area which have been found to be bogus by the assessing officer, were rightly added to the income of the assessee. The order of the assessing officer was upheld, while dismissing the I.T.A. No. 39/2001, by this court against which the assessee preferred the aforesaid S.L.P. which too has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18-1-2002, as stated above.
2. Shri Jain, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Review filed by the assessee against the decision of the Supreme Court has also been dismissed. After the decision of the Supreme Court, it appears that the assessee filed an application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, which has been allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 15-11-2002 and the Tribunal recalled its earlier order and posted the matter for hearing on merits. Ultimately by the order impugned passed on 7-2-2003, the ITAT dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue, but allowed the cross-objections of the assessee.
3. From the perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that the said order has been passed by the ITAT in the total ignorance of the decision of the Supreme Court, as mentioned above. This in our considered opinion, would be a fit case in which the revenue should file an application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act and bring to the notice of the Tribunal the decision of the Supreme Court so that the ITAT may pass appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of law and the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
4. Thus, we dispose of the appeal with the above directions.