MMTC Limited, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2487/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3477 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 02-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANGEETA GUPTA
• Section: 64

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ITA NOS. 2487 & 2488(DEL)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2001-02 & 2003-04 MMTC LTD., DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- SCOPE COMPLEX, VS. TAX, CIRCLE 5(1), NEW DELHI. CORE-1, LODHI ROAD INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURJIT SINGH, GENERAL MAN AGER, (FINA NCE) RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SANGEETA GUPTA, CIT, DR ORDER PER BENCH DURING THE COURSE OF PENDENCY OF HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBTAINED THE AP PROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE FORMED FOR RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE CENTRAL PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS AND THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. SUCH AN APPROVAL IS MANDATORY FOR NOT ONLY PROSECUTING THE APPEAL BUT ALSO FOR FILING AN APPEAL, AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE ITA NOS. 2487 & 2488(DEL)/2010 2 NIGAM LTD. VS. CHAIRMAN, CBDT [2004] 267 ITR 64 7. IN THIS JUDGMENT, AT PAGE 642, THE HONBLE COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: - UNDOUBTEDLY, THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE A RIGHT IN A C OURT OF LAW CANNOT BE EFFACED. HOWEVER, IT MUST BE REMEMBE RED THAT COURTS ARE OVER-BURDENED WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF CASES. THE MAJORITY OF SUCH CASES PERTAIN TO GOVERNMENT DEPA RTMENTS AND/OR PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS. AS IS STATED IN CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS CASE [2003] 3 SCC 472, IT WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION O R THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE THAT TWO DEPARTMENTS OF A STATE O R UNION OF INDIA AND/OR A DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT AND A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING FIGHT A LITIGATION IN A COUR T OF LAW. SUCH A COURSE IS DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC INTEREST AS I T ENTAILS AVOIDABLE WASTAGE OF PUBLIC MONEY AND TIME. THER E ARE ALL LIMITS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND MUST ACT IN CO-ORD INATION AND NOT CONFRONTATION. THE MECHANISM SET UP BY THIS COURT IS NOT, AS SUGGESTED BY MR. ANDHYARUJINA, ONLY TO CONC ILIATE BETWEEN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS. IT IS ALSO SET UP FOR PURPOSES OF ENSURING THAT FRIVOLOUS DISPUTES DO NOT COME BEFORE COURTS WITHOUT CLEARANCE FROM THE HIGH POWERED COMMITTEE. IF IT CAN, THE HIGH POWERED COMMITTE E WILL RESOLVE THE DISPUTE. IF THE DISPUTE IS NOT RESO LVED THE COMMITTEE WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY GIVE CLEARANCE. HO WEVER, THERE COULD ALSO BE FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION PROPOS ED BY A DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OR A PUBLIC SECT OR UNDERTAKING. THIS COULD BE PREVENTED BY THE HIG H POWERED COMMITTEE. IN SUCH CASES THERE IS NO QUESTION O F RESOLVING THE DISPUTE. THE COMMITTEE ONLY HAS TO REFUSE PERMISSION TO LITIGATE. NO RIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT/PUBLIC SECTO R UNDERTAKING IS AFFECTED IN SUCH A CASE. THE LITIGATION BEI NG OF A FRIVOLOUS NATURE MUST NOT BE BROUGHT TO COURT. TO BE REM EMBERED THAT IN ALMOST ALL CASES ONE OR THE OTHER PARTY WIL L NOT BE HAPPY WITH THE DECISION OF THE HIGH POWERED COMMITTE E. THE DISSATISFIED PARTY WILL ALWAYS CLAIM THAT ITS RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED, WHEN IN FACT, NO RIGHT IS AFFECTED. THE COMMITTEE IS CONSTITUTED OF HIGHLY PLACED OFFICERS OF THE GOV ERNMENT, WHO ITA NOS. 2487 & 2488(DEL)/2010 3 DO NOT HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE DISPUTE, IT IS T HUS EXPECTED THAT THEIR DECISION WILL BE FAIR AND HONEST. EVEN IF THE DEPARTMENT/PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING FINDS THE DECISION UNPALATABLE, DISCIPLINE REQUIRES THAT THEY ABID E BY IT. OTHERWISE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS EXERCISE W ILL BE LOST AND EVERY PARTY AGAINST WHOM THE DECISION IS GI VEN WILL CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN WRONGED AND THAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED. THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE DONE . 2. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DECISION, BOTH THE PA RTIES FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE INSTANT APPEALS MAY BE DISMISSED IN LIMIN E BY GRANTING LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REVIVE THE APPEALS ON RECEIPT OF APPROVAL OF THE COD TO THE EXTENT THE APPROVAL IS GRANTED. 3. THUS, THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE W ITH AFORESAID LIBERTY. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.07.2010 SOON AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (K.G.BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF ORDER: 27TH JULY,2010. SP SATIA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- MMTC, SCOPE COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD INSTITUTIONAL AR EA, NEW DELHI. DY.CIT, CIRCLE-5(1), NEW DELHI. CIT(A) CIT THE DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.