DCIT, Circle - 6, Kolkata V. M/s. UCO Bank, Kolkata

ITA 1978/KOL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7945 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2009
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C NAYAK
• Assessee Lawyers: ATUL PODDAR; SAMIR DHAMIDHARKA

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, KOLKA TA (BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SHRI B.C.MEENA,AM) I.T.A.NO.1978/KOL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6, -VS- M/S. UCO BANK KOLKATA, KOLKATA GIR NO.11-000-CT-6488 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.C.NAYAK, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ATUL PODDAR & SHRI SAMIR DHAMIDHARKA O R D E R PER SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST ORDE R DATED 20.08.2009 OF THE CIT- (A)-VI, KOLKATA PERTAINING TO 1998-99 A.YR. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING AN ADJOURNMENT PETITI ON WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT STATING THAT THE LD.(CIT) DR SHRI K.K.SR IVASTAVA IS OUT OF STATION ATTENDING AN URGENT MEETING. AS SUCH TIME WAS SOUGHT. HOWEVER , ON A PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS AGITATED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT WAS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO REJECT THE ADJOURNMENT PE TITION AS THE PRESENT APPEAL HAD BEEN MOVED WITHOUT THE NECESSARY PERMISSION OF THE HIGH POWERED COMMITTEE AS HAS BEEN MANDATED BY THE APEX COURT IN A PLETHORA OF CA SES. MENTION MAY BE MADE TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN MAHANAGAR T ELEPHONE LTD. V. CHAIRMAN, CBDT REPORTED IN 267 ITR 647 AT PAGE 652 HAS AGAIN POINTED OUT AS UNDER :- UNDOUBTEDLY, THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE A RIGHT IN COUR T OF LAW CANNOT BE EFFACED. HOWEVER, IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT COURTS ARE OVER -BURDENED WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF CASES. THE MAJORITY OF SUCH CASES PERTAIN TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND/OR PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS. AS I S STATED IN CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS CASE (2003) 3 SCC 472 IT WA S NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION OR THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE THAT TWO DEPARTMENTS OF A STATE OR UNION OF INDIA AND/OR A DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT AND A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING FIGHT A LITIGATION IN A C OURT OF LAW. SUCH A COURSE IS DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC INTEREST AS IT ENTAILS AVOIDA BLE WASTAGE OF PUBLIC MONEY AND TIME. THESE ARE ALL LIMBS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND MUST ACT IN CO-ORDINATION 2 AND NOT CONFRONTATION. THE MECHANISM SET UP BY THIS COURT IS NOT, AS SUGGESTED BY MR.ANDHYARUJINA, ONLY TO CONCILIATE BETWEEN GOVE RNMENT DEPARTMENTS. IT IS ALSO SET UP FOR PURPOSES OF ENSURING THAT FRIVOLOUS DISPUTES DO NOT COME BEFORE COURTS WITHOUT CLEARANCE FROM THE HIGH POWERED COMM ITTEE. IF IT CAN, THE HIGH POWERED COMMITTEE WILL RESOLVE THE DISPUTE. IF THE DISPUTE IS NOT RESOLVED THE COMMITTEE WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY GIVE CLEARANCE. HOWEVER , THERE COULD ALSO BE FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION PROPOSED BY A DEPARTMENT OF TH E GOVERNMENT OR A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING. THIS COULD BE PREVENTED BY THE HIGH POWERED COMMITTEE. IN SUCH CASES THERE IS NO QUESTION OF RESOLVING THE DISPUTE. THE COMMITTEE ONLY HAS TO REFUSE PERMISSION TO LITIGATE. NO RIGHT OF T HE DEPARTMENT/PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING IS AFFECTED IN SUCH A CASE. THE LITIGAT ION BEING A FRIVOLOUS NATURE MUST NOT BE BROUGHT TO COURT. TO BE REMEMBERED THAT IN ALMOST ALL CASES ONE OR THE OTHER PARTY WILL NOT BE HAPPY WITH THE DECISION OF THE HIGH POWERED COMMITTEE. THE DISSATISFIED PARTY WILL ALWAYS CLAIM THAT ITS RIGHTS AFFECTED, WHEN IN FACT, NO RIGHT IS AFFECTED. THE COMMITTEE I S CONSTITUTED OF HIGHLY PLACED OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT, WHO DO NOT HAVE AN INTE REST IN THE DISPUTE, IT IS THUS EXPECTED THAT THEIR DECISION WILL BE FAIR AND HONEST. EVEN IF THE DEPARTMENT/PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING FINDS THE DECI SION UNPALATABLE, DISCIPLINE REQUIRES THAT THEY ABIDE BY IT. OTHERWIS E THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS EXERCISE WILL BE LOST AND EVERY PARTY AGAINST WHOM THE DECISION IS GIVEN WILL CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN WRONGED AND THAT THEIR RI GHTS ARE AFFECTED. THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE DONE. 3. THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH WERE REQUIRE D TO ADDRESS THIS LIMITED ASPECT. 4. THE LD. SR.DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE COD PERMISSION IS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. AR ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE DEPARTME NT HAS NOT OBTAINED THE COD PERMISSION WHICH IS NECESSARY AS PER THE JUDGEMENTS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS AND THE SUPREME COURT. 5. IN THE AFORE MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DISMISS THE DE PARTMENTAL APPEAL IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF NECESSARY PERMISSION. HOWEVER, WE HASTEN TO ADD THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO REVIVE THIS APPEAL BY WAY OF MOVING A MI SCELLANEOUS PETITION AND PRAYING FOR RECALL OF THIS ORDER AND ADJUDICATING OF THE GR OUNDS RAISED AND PERMITTED TO BE ARGUED ON MERITS AS AND WHEN COD APPROVAL IS GRANTE D TO THE DEPARTMENT BY THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE FOR PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL 3 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED AS PER THE PRONOUNCEMENT MADE IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTI ES ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF I.E. 31.03.2010. SD/- SD/- (B.C.MEENA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 31.03.2010. COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO :- 1. M/S. U CO.BANK, 10, B.T.M.SARANI, KOLKATA-700001 . 2. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA. 3. C.I.T.(APPEALS)-VI, KOLKATA 4) C.I.T. KOLKA TA 5. D.R., ITAT, KOLKATA BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., KOLKATA R.G./P.S. TRUE COPY