Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Kumbakonam V. JCIT, Kumbakonam

MA 20/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5336 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH B : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] M.P.NO.20/MDS/2011 [ARISING OUT OF I .T.A NO. 1933/MDS/2009] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1994-95 THE TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KUMBAKONAM) LTD RAILWAY STATION NEW ROAD KUMBAKONAM 612 001 PAN:AAACD1269K VS THE JT. CIT KUMBAKONAM RANGE KUMBAKONAM (PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RECALLING OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 5.10.201 0, VIDE WHICH THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PERMISSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES(COD). THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN LIBERTY TO GET THE ORDER RECALLED ONCE IT OBTAINS THE REQUISITE CO D PERMISSION. 2. IT HAS BEEN PLEADED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED RECENTLY IN THE CASE OF ELEC TRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD VS UNION OF INDIA, 2011-TIOL-18-SC-CX- CB, JUDGMENT DATED 17.2.2011, IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1883 OF 2011 A ND 1903 OF 2008, M.P 20/2011 :- 2 -: SLP NO.2538 OF 2009, IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY HEL D THAT FOR PURSUING LITIGATION BETWEEN PSUS AND THE GOVERNMENT, THERE I S NO LONGER A NEED TO OBTAIN PERMISSION OF COD. THE REASON FOR ARRIVI NG AT THE ABOVE CONCLUSION HAS BEEN STATED TO BE THAT ALTHOUGH THE OBJECT IN GETTING COD PERMISSION IS LAUDATORY BUT THE MECHANISM INVOL VED IN THE PROCESS LEADS TO DELAYS IN LITIGATION AND AS SUCH, THE MECHANISM HAS OUTLIVED ITS UTILITY. A COPY OF THE ABOVE MENTIONE D JUDGMENT HAS BEEN PLACED FOR OUR PERUSAL. ALTHOUGH WE ARE AWARE OF T HIS DECISION, YET WE HAVE TREADED ONCE AGAIN THROUGH IT. IT HAS BEEN OB SERVED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS THAT IN THE CHANGED SCENARIO THE EXISTING DIRECTIONS TO OBTAIN COD PERMISSION HAS OUTLIVED SO IT IS BEING RECALLED AND HEREINAFTER, THERE IS NO NEED FOR SUCH PERMISSION OF COD TO PURS UE LITIGATION BETWEEN PSUS AND GOVERNMENT. SINCE THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT BECOMES THE LAW OF THE LAND IN VIEW OF ARTICLE 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, IT WOULD BE DEEMED THAT ON THE DATE OF JU DGMENT PASSED ON 5.10.2010 BY THIS BENCH THERE WAS NO NEED FOR PERMI SSION OF THE COD TO PURSUE THE DISPUTE BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. SINCE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD HAS CREPT INTO THE TRIBUNALS ORDER, WE RECA LL IT AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 3.5.2011. M.P 20/2011 :- 3 -: 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ST ANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 25.3.2011. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( HARI OM MARATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25 TH MARCH, 2011 RD COPY TO: PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR