CIT, FARIDABAD V. M/S NHPC LTD.

ITA/485/2010

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad against M/s NHPC Ltd. concerning the assessment under Minimum Alternative Tax under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2004-05. The primary legal issue was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was correct in dismissing the revenue's appeal due to the absence of Committee on Disputes (COD) approval, despite precedents suggesting such approval was not necessary. The High Court, referencing a Supreme Court decision, found that the ITAT's requirement for COD approval was not legally sound and thus remanded the case for a fresh decision without this procedural barrier.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 739863 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. ITAT, Oil & Natural Gas Commission V. Collector of Central Excise, Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P K MUTNEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: URVASHI DHUGGA
• Keywords: Income tax appellate tribunal; Minimum Alternative Tax; Remand; COD approval
• Section: 115JB; 260A

Judgement Text

"Income-tax Appeal No.485 of 2010 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Income-tax Appeal No.485 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.2.2011 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad ...Appellant Versus M/s NHPC Ltd. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the respondent **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J ( Oral) . 1. This order will dispose of ITAs No.485, 486, 487 and 488 of 2010 as it is stated that all the four appeals involve common question. 2. ITA No.485 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 16.7.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F', Delhi in ITA No.2449/(DEL)/2008, for the assessment year 2004-05, claiming following substantial question of law:- “i). Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. ITAT was right in dismissing Income-tax Appeal No.485 of 2010 -2- *** the appeal of the Revenue by holding that no COD approval had been obtained ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. ITAT reported in 314 ITR 14 wherein it has been held that there is no such requirement to approach the committee as the assessee and the Income Tax Department cannot be asked to go and obtain clearance from a committee which has no jurisdiction over them and even the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules do not permit exercise of such powers by the Tribunal?” 3. The Assessing Officer made assessment under Minimum Alternative Tax under Section 115JB. On appeal the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee on the quantum of addition of income. Further appeal of the Department before the Tribunal was dismissed only on the ground that concerned committee constituted in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oil & Natural Gas Commission V. Collector of Central Excise (1992) 104 CTR 31 (SC) had not given approval and in absence thereof appeal could not be entertained. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the view taken by the Tribunal is not legally sound. Learned counsel for the Income-tax Appeal No.485 of 2010 -3- *** assessee fairly accepts this position in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1883 of 2011, Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 17.2.2011. 6. Accordingly, question raised is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The appeals are allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Matters are remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. 7. The parties may appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on May 30,2011. 8. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge February 28, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge "