DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s National Cooperative Development Corporation, New Delhi

ITA 87/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0134 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 24-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO. 87/DEL/10 ASSTT. YEAR 1999-2000 DCIT, CIRCLE 13(1), NEW DELHI. VS. M/S. NATIONAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 4, SIRI INSTITUTIONAL AREA, HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI 110 016. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI MOHNISH VERMA, CIT (DR) RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K.V.S.R. KRISHNA, CA ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JM: THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 22 ND OCTOBER, 2009 PASSED FOR ASSTT. YEAR 1999-2000. TH E GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETIN G THE PENALTY OF ` 2,11,64,000/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN UNDERTAKING OF THE GOVT . OF INDIA. AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ONGC VS. CCE REPORTED IN 1995 SUPP (4) SCC 541 DATED 11.10.91, T HE GOVT. DEPARTMENT OR ITA NO. 87/DEL/10 ASSTT. YEAR 1999-2000 2 ITS UNDERTAKING FOR CARRYING ANY LITIGATION IN FURT HER APPEAL HAS TO TAKE PERMISSION FROM A HIGH POWER COMMITTEE THAT IS CALL ED COMMITTEE ON DISPUTE (COD). FOR CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REV ENUE HAS TO OBTAIN A PERMISSION FROM SUCH COD. IT HAS APPLIED FOR SUCH P ERMISSION BUT THE PERMISSION HAS BEEN DENIED TO THE REVENUE BY THE CO D IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 23 RD DECEMBER, 2010. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACE D ON RECORD COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COD. LD. DR WAS U NABLE TO CONTROVERT THE CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 2. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. AT SERIAL NO. 20, THE REQUEST OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COD AND T HE PERMISSION HAS BEEN DENIED. THIS PERMISSION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN OBT AINED BY THE REVENUE PRIOR TO FILING OF THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN PRESENTED ON 7 TH JANUARY, 2010. ITS APPEAL COULD BE REGULARISED EVEN IF DURIN G THE PENDENCY, PERMISSION WAS GRANTED TO THE REVENUE. IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL F OR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR A LIMITED PERMISSION WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ALSO . IT ALSO COULD NOT AGITATE THE OTHER ISSUES. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ABO VE FACTS, THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. HENCE, IT IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH MARCH, 2011. SD/- [B.C. MEENA] [RAJPAL YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24.3.2011 VEENA ITA NO. 87/DEL/10 ASSTT. YEAR 1999-2000 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT