Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9567 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
09-11-2012
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
02-11-2012
Assessment Year
2007-2008
Appeal Filed On
04-09-2012
Judgement Text
MP NOS.73&74/VIZ/2012, SENIOR MANAGER, CANARA BANK, VSKP PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M. P . NO S . 73&74 / VIZAG/20 12 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.481&482/VIZAG/2007) ASSE SSMENT YEAR S : 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 SENIOR MANAGER, CANARA BANK VISAKHAPATNAM VS. ITO TDS - 2(2), RANGE - 2 VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAACC 6106G APPELLANT BY: SHRI C. SUBRAHMANYAM, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S. RAVI SHANKAR NARAYAN, JCI T DATE OF HEARING : 09.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.11.2012 ORDER PER SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT : BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 13.4.2009, THE ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH DISMISSED THE APPEALS FILED BY THE APPELLANT FOR WANT OF PERMISSION FROM THE `COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES (COD). HOWEVER, T HE BENCH OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT IS AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNA L AS AND WHEN THEY OBTAIN THE PERMISSION FROM THE COD. 2. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LIM ITED VS. UOI & OTHERS 51 DTR (SC) 193, THE APPELLANT FILED A PETITION FOR RE CALLING OF THE ORDER, ON THE GROUND THAT PERMISSION FROM THE `COMMITTEE ON DISPU TES IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE OBTAINED. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND IS THAT AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, WHEN THE IMPUGNED APPEALS W ERE FILED AND HEARD BY THE TRIBUNAL, PERMISSION FROM COD WAS REQUIRED IN O RDER TO PROSECUTE THE APPEALS (IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE 104 CTR 31 (SC) AND HENCE THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, LD. D.R. PLACED BEFORE U S A COPY OF THE DECISION OF MP NOS.73&74/VIZ/2012, SENIOR MANAGER, CANARA BANK, VSKP PAGE 2 OF 4 ITAT LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. U.P. DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY LTD. (MA NO.56/LKW/10 DATED 4.1.12). 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT TH E APEX COURT, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 17.2.2011, IN THE CASE OF ELECTRONICS C ORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) RECALLED THEIR DIRECTIONS REGARDING THE APP ROVAL OF COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES CONSTITUTED IN CABINET SECRETARIAT FOR PUR SUING LITIGATIONS BY PSU/GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS. THOUGH THE APPELLANT V IGOROUSLY PURSUED TO OBTAIN APPROVAL, IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATION MA DE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY THE ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VIDE ITS MEMORANDU M DATED 1.9.2011, THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS TAKEN A POLICY DECISION TO WIND UP THE COMMITTEE FORTHWITH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT (SUPRA). LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF ELECTRONI CS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., THE BENCH OBSERVED THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF A COMMITTEE TO CLEAR THE MATTERS PENDING FOR LITIGATION BY PSUS/GOVERNMENT D EPARTMENTS DID NOT SERVE ANY USEFUL PURPOSE AND THEREFORE, THE COURT R ECALLED THEIR DIRECTIONS, WHEREBY IT HAS BECOME IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE/A PPELLANT TO OBTAIN PERMISSION AT THIS STAGE, SO AS TO MEET THE DIRECTI ON OF THE BENCH. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT A PARTY CANNOT BE CALLED UPON TO DO AN Y IMPOSSIBILITY. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE LATER DECISION OF THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF PRINCIPLES OF NAT URAL JUSTICE, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DESERVE TO BE RECALLED FOR HEARING AFRESH ON MERITS. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT EVEN ON MERITS, THE ASSESSEE HAS A S TRONG CASE AND THUS ON TECHNICAL REASONS A PARTY SHOULD NOT SUFFER, PARTIC ULARLY WHEN IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN APPROVAL AT THIS JUNCTURE, SINCE THE GOVE RNMENT OF INDIA WOUND UP THE COMMITTEE WHICH IMPLIES THAT THERE IS NO NEED F OR COD AND IT SHOULD BE DEEMED TO BE AN AUTOMATIC APPROVAL IN ALL THE CASES , WHERE THE PSUS/GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS TAKE A POLICY DECISION TO PREFER AN APPEAL. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE DECISION OF THE ITAT LU CKNOW IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS IN AS MUCH AS IN THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISI ON, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO DIRECTION TO OBTAIN APPROVAL OF COD. IN OTHER W ORDS, LIBERTY WAS NOT GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL UP ON OBTAINING PERMISSION FROM COD. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE BENCH HAV ING GRANTED LIBERTY TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL FOR RECALLING ITS ORDER AND F OR THE DISPOSAL OF THE MP NOS.73&74/VIZ/2012, SENIOR MANAGER, CANARA BANK, VSKP PAGE 3 OF 4 APPEALS ON MERITS IN THE EVENT OF OBTAINING PERMISS ION FROM THE COD, THE MATTER HAS TO BE LOOKED AT FROM THE PRACTICAL POINT OF VIEW AND BEARING IN MIND THAT THE COMMITTEE HAVING BEEN WOUND UP, THE A SSESSEE CANNOT BE CALLED UPON TO DO ANY IMPOSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING PE RMISSION AT THIS JUNCTURE. IT HAS TO BE ASSUMED THAT THERE IS A BLANKET PERMISSIO N GRANTED TO ALL THE PSUS, ETC. IN WHICH EVENT, THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE BENCH. THEREFORE, LD. COUNSEL REQUESTED FOR RECALL OF THE ORDERS. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE CABINET SECRETARIAT OF GOVERNMENT OF I NDIA HAS ISSUED AN OFFICE MEMORANDUM ON 1.9.2011, WHICH EXPLAINS THE INTENTIO N OF GOVERNMENT I.E. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), THE EARLIER COND ITION OF OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM THE `COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES WAS REMOVED AND HE NCE THE COMMITTEE ITSELF WAS WOUND UP WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT, WHICH IN -TURN IMPLIES THAT ALL THE PSUS/GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS WHO INTEND TO PURSUE LI TIGATION CAN INDEPENDENTLY PURSUE THE LITIGATION WITHOUT OBTAINI NG APPROVAL FROM THE COD AND IT HAS TO BE INFERRED THAT THERE IS AN AUTOMATI C APPROVAL. HAVING REGARD TO THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, DESERVES TO BE RECALLED AND TO BE HEARD ON MERITS. WE THEREFORE, DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO POST THE APPEA LS FOR FRESH HEARING IN DUE COURSE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.11.2 012 SD/ - SD/ - ( B.R. BASKARAN ) ( D. MANMOHAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 9 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 MP NOS.73&74/VIZ/2012, SENIOR MANAGER, CANARA BANK, VSKP PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO 1 THE SENIOR MANAGER, CANARA BANK, VISAKHAPATNAM 2 THE ITO (TDS) - 2(2), RANG E - 2, VISAKHAPATNAM 3 CIT , VISAKHAPATNAM 4 CIT(A) , VISAKHAPATNAM 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM
