AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
23.12.2024: This appeal has been filed against order dated 25.10.2024, which order is to the following effect:
“ORDER
Heard both the Counsel for OC and CD. List on 14.11.2024 for further hearing.”
Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that an earlier order was passed on 18.03.2024 directing the Corporate Debtor to file certain documents which has not yet been filed and an IA No.3205/MB/2024 has already been filed by the Appellant in this regard which was also listed on 25.10.2024.
Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that they have already complied with the order and filed the documents.
The question as to whether there is compliance of order dated 18.03.2024 is the question which needs to be decided by the Adjudicating Authority itself.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that now the matter has been listed on 16.01.2025. In view of the aforesaid, we see no reason to entertain this appeal. We, however, observe that the Appellant having already filed IA No.3205/MB/2024, which was also listed on 25.10.2024, the Adjudicating Authority may pass order on Section 9 application as well as IA No.3205/MB/2024.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that IA No.3205/MB/2024 needs to be decided first. We are of the view that it is for the Adjudicating Authority to take decision as whether to decide the IA first or along with the Section 9 application. We are of the view that no direction can be issued in this regard.
Learned counsel for the Appellant has relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “(2003) 9 SCC 211, Jyotsana Suri Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors.”. Said was a case where application filed under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 was pending for adducing additional evidence in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that application was required to be disposed of first before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal heard the appeal on merits. The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is to the following effect:
“JUDGMENT
1.Special leave granted.
2.The Tribunal has disposed of the appeal by its order of 3rd Jan., 1997, without considering the pending application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, for adducing additional evidence. Obviously, that application was required to be disposed of first before the Tribunal heard the appeal on merits. The appellant also undertakes to withdraw the pending application before the Tribunal for making a reference under Section 256(1) of the IT Act for the above purpose. In view thereof, we direct that the Tribunal should first dispose of the application under Rule 29 on merits and thereafter proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. The order dt. 3rd Jan., 1997, is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for disposal on merit in accordance with law. The order of the High Court is set aside as above and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.”
We are of the view that said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was on its own facts under ITAT Rules and cannot be relied for controversy in present case.
With these observations, the appeal is dismissed.