ADIT (E) 1(1), V. THE MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

MA 191/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1697 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S D SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAILESH B SETHIA
• Keywords: Competent authority

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI , . . , , BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, AM M.A. NO. 191/MUM/2012 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.3554/MUM/2008) ( ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2004-2005 THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION- 1(1),ROOM NO. 504, 5 TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBER,LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400 012 / VS. THE MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MAHADA), GRIHA NIRMAN BHAVAN, BANDRA(E), MUMBAI-400 051 # ./ $% ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAJM 0344H ( &'#( / APPELLANT ) .. ( )*#( / RESPONDENT ) &'#( + / APPELLANT BY: SHRI S.D. SRIVASTAVA )*#( , + / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SHAILESH B. SETHIA - , ./ / DATE OF HEARING :28.02.2014 01'! , ./ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :07.03.2014 2 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE REVENUE IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 3554/M/2008 DT . 05.06.2009. THE REVENUE CONTENDS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED TH E APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ABSENCE OF APPROVAL OF COD. 2. IT IS THE SAY OF THE REVENUE THAT THE HONBLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHIVSHAHI PUNARVASAN PARAKALP LTD. VS UNION OF M.A. NO.191/M/2012 2 INDIA IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2270 OF 2009 HAS HELD TH AT COD APPROVAL IS NOT NECESSARY WHICH RELATES TO THE ADJUDICATION OF A DISPUTE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT IS THE PRAYER OF THE REVE NUE THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESTATED DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 3554/M/2008. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ONGC VS CIDCO (2007) 7 SCC) 39 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EVEN APPEALS INVOLVING STATE GOVERNM ENT UNDERTAKINGS REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF COD. WE HAVE ALSO THE BENE FIT OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. A-12034/01/2011-AD.I, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CABINET SECRETARIAT, RASHTRAPATI BHAVAN WHICH STATES AS UND ER: INSTANCES HAVE COME TO NOTICE WHEREIN A FEW PSUS/DEPARTMENTS HAVE APPROACHED TRIBUNAL/COURTS TO RE- OPEN THE CASES IN WHICH PERMISSION TO LITIGATE WAS DENIED BY COD. IN A FEW CASES CASES, PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS/DEPARTMENTS HAVE FILED PETITIONS IN TH E HIGH COURTS. IN AN ISOLATED CASE, A SPECIAL LEAVE PETIT ION (SLP) HAS ALSO BEEN FILED IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT BY AN ORGANIZATION AGAINST THE HIGH COURT DECISION SEEKIN G CLARIFICATION OF THE ORDER DT. 17.2.2011 OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT, ALTHOUGH THE HIGH COURT HAD DECLINED TO RE- OPEN THE CASE. SINCE THE MATTER HAS BEEN AGITATED BEFORE THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN ONE CASE AND DECISION ON THE SAME IS PENDING, FOLLOWING INTERIM DIRECTIONS ARE ISSUED, W ITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, FOR STRICT COM PLIANCE: (I) NO MINISTRY/DEPARTMENT OR PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING UNDER THEM MAY RE-OPEN THOSE CASES IN WHICH CLEAR DECISIONS HAS BEEN ISSUED M.A. NO.191/M/2012 3 BY THE ISSUED BY THE COD PRIOR TO 17.2.2011, AND (II) MINISTRIES/DEPARTMENTS MAY CIRCULATE THE INSTRUCTIONS TO ALL CONCERNED OFFICES/PSUS UNDER THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL INDICATING THAT ANY VIOLATION MAY BE VIEWED SERIOUSLY AND MAY INVITE ADMINISTRATIVE/DISCIPLINARY ACTION. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS FILED A LETTER DT. 27.2.2014 WHICH READ AS UNDER: IN THIS REGARD, ON VERIFICATION OF THIS OFFICE REC ORDS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE REPORT OF ITO (HQ)(JUDICI AL), MU7MBAI, NO COD PROPOSAL HAS BEEN SENT IN THE CASE OF M/S. MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORI TY FOR A.Y. 2004-05. 5. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS IN TOTALITY, WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO COD PROPOSAL HAS BEEN SENT, THEREFORE FOLL OWING THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM (SUPRA), THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN IT A NO. 3554/M/08 IS RECALLED. THE APPEAL IS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 19.8 .2014 AND BOTH THE PARTIES NOTED THE DATE OF HEARING. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH MARCH, 2014 . 2 , 1'! 3 4 5 07/03/2014 1 , 6- 7 SD/- SD/ (B.R. MITTAL ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - MUMBAI; 4 DATED 07/03/2014 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS M.A. NO.191/M/2012 4 2 2 2 2 , ,, , ).' ).' ).' ).' &8'. &8'. &8'. &8'. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. &'#( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*#( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 ( &' ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 9 / CIT 5. :6 ). , &' & ! , - / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6; <- / GUARD FILE. 2 2 2 2 / BY ORDER, *'. ). //TRUE COPY// =' ='=' =' / > > > > '$ '$ '$ '$ (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) &' &' &' &' & ! & ! & ! & ! , - / ITAT, MUMBAI