DCIT, Circle - 6, Kolkata, Kolkata V. United Bank of India, Kolkata

ITA 568/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9372 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BONANI GHOSH
• Assessee Lawyers: S CHOUDHURY
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH : KOLKATA () BEFORE . . . . . . . . , , , , , !' !' !' !' /AND . .. . . .. .! !! ! , # ) [BEFORE HONBLE SRI D. K. TYAGI, JM & HONBLE SRI C . D. RAO, AM] '$ '$ '$ '$ / I.T.A NO. 568/KOL/2010 %&' !() %&' !() %&' !() %&' !()/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, -VS- UNITED BA NK OF INDIA CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA. (PA NO. AAACU 5624 P) ( +, /APPELLANT ) (-+,/ RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT : SMT. BONANI GHOSH FOR THE RESPONDENT : SRI S. CHOUDHURY . / ORDER PER D. K. TYAGI, JM ( . . . . . . . . , , , , ) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), KOLKATA DATED 23.12.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03. 2. WE HAVE HEARD SMT. BONANI GHOSH, THE LD. DR AND SRI S. CHOWDHURY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE 3. THE ASSESSEE/RESPONDENT, IN THIS CASE, IS UNITED BANK OF INDIA, WHICH IS A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING. IN TERMS OF HONBLE SUPREME COU RTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF ONGC VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (104 CTR 31), WHENE VER THERE IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKI NG, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE REVENUE/APPELLANT, AS THE CASE MAY BE, TO OBTAIN TH E PERMISSION OF THE HIGH POWERED COMMITTEE (HPC). HOWEVER, IN THIS PRESENT CASE, NO SUCH CLEARANCE FROM THE HIGH POWERED COMMITTEE HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY THE APPELLAN T FOR PURSUING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NI GAM LTD. V. CHAIRMAN, CBDT (2004) 267 ITR 647 AT PAGE 652 HAS AGAIN POINT ED OUT AS UNDER :- UNDOUBTEDLY, THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE A RIGHT IN COURT 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 DEPART MENTS AND/OR PUBLIC SECTOR 2 UNDERTAKINGS. AS IS STATED IN CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS CASE (2003) 3 SCC 472 IT WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITU TION OR THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE THAT TWO DEPARTMENTS OF A STATE OR UNION OF INDIA A ND/OR A DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT AND A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING FIGHT A LITIGATION IN A COURT OF LAW. SUCH A COURSE IS DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC INTEREST AS IT ENTA ILS AVOIDABLE WASTAGE OF PUBLIC MONEY AND TIME. THESE ARE ALL LIMBS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND MUST ACT IN CO-ORDINATION AND NOT CONFRONTATION. THE MECHANISM SET UP BY THIS COURT I S NOT, AS SUGGESTED BY MR. ANDHYARUJINA, ONLY TO CONCILIATE 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 CA N, THE HIGH POWERED COMMITTEE WILL RESOLVE THE DISPUTE. IF THE DISPUTE IS NOT RES OLVED THE COMMITTEE WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY GIVE CLEARANCE. HOWEVER, THERE COULD ALSO BE FRIVOL OUS LITIGATION PROPOSED BY A DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OR A PUBLIC SECTOR UND ERTAKING. 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 PERMISSIO N TO LITIGATE. NO RIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT/PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING IS AFFECTED IN SUCH A CASE. THE LITIGATION BEING A FRIVOLOUS NATURE MUST NOT BE BROUGHT TO COURT. TO B E 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 IS CONSTITUTED OF HIGHLY PLACED OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT, WHO DO NOT HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE DISP UTE, IT IS THUS EXPECTED THAT THEIR DECISION WILL BE FAIR AND HONEST. EVEN IF THE DEPAR TMENT/ PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING FINDS THE DECISION UNPALATABLE, DISCIPLINE REQUIRES THAT THEY ABIDE BY IT. OTHERWISE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS EXERCISE WILL BE LOST AND EVERY PAR TY AGAINST WHOM THE DECISION IS GIVEN WILL CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN WRONGED AND THAT THE IR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED. THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE DONE. 5. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CLEARANCE FROM THE HIGH PO WERED COMMITTEE, THE APPEAL IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ENTERTAINED AT THIS STAGE AND, T HEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL AS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN LAW. HOWEVER, IT WILL BE OPEN FOR T HE APPELLANT TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR REVIVAL OF THE APPEAL AFTER CLEARANCE IS OBTAINED. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 7. THE ORDER WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- . . ! , # . . , (C. D. RAO) (D. K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( # # # #) )) ) DATED : 28 TH JANUARY, 2011 !/0 %&12 %3! JD.(SR.P.S.) 3 . 4 -%%5 65(7- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. +, / APPELLANT DCIT, CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA. 2 -+, / RESPONDENT, UNITED BANK OF INDIA, 16, OLD COURT H OUSE ST., KOLKATA-700 001.. 3. %.&/ THE CIT, KOLKATA. 4. %.& ()/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 5. !=% -%& / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA 5 -%/ TRUE COPY, .&>/ BY ORDER, ? '2 /DEPUTY REGISTRAR .