THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. M/S.STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE

RP/892/2011

AI Insights

The case involves the Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, as the petitioner, and M/s. State Bank of Travancore as the respondent. The core issue was whether the appeals filed by the Revenue against the Bank should be restored despite the Committee on Disputes (COD) having declined permission to file these appeals. The Revenue argued that following a Supreme Court decision, the COD was no longer relevant, and thus, the appeals should be considered. However, the court found that the COD was validly constituted when it declined permission, and the Supreme Court's decision did not retroactively apply to the cases where the COD had already made a decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 728009 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, Commissioner of Income Tax v. South Indian Bank Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India and Others (2011 (332) ITR 58), Commissioner of Income Tax v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (326 ITR 174)
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P BALAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Keywords: Committee on Disputes; Income Tax Appeals; Public Sector Undertakings; Supreme Court judgment

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 892 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN ITA.214/2009 Dated 15/12/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): / APPELLANT ---------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENT --------------- M/S.STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, POOJAPPURA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 6 95 012. MR.P.BALAKRISHNAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2011, ALONG WITH R.P.Nos. 893 of 2011 in ITA No. 380 of 2009, 894 of 2011 in ITA No. 927 of 2009, 895 of 2011 in ITA No.1276 of 2009 & 896 of 2011 in ITA No. 1542 of 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN UL-RASHID & V.K.MOHANAN, JJJ. .................................................................... R.P.Nos.892 of 2011 in ITA No.214 of 2009, 893 of 2011 in ITA No. 380 of 2009, 894 of 2011 in ITA No. 927 of 2009, 895 of 2011 in ITA No.1276 of 2009 & 896 of 2011 in ITA No. 1542 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011. O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. We have heard learned Senior counsel Shri.P.K.R.Menon for the Revenue and Shri.P.Balakrishnan, who represented the respondent Bank. 2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India and Others (2011 (332) ITR 58), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that the Committee on Disputes has outlived it's utility and consequently, the earlier order of the Supreme Court directing constitution of the Committee is recalled. Ever since the judgment of the Supreme Court, there is no scope for the Committee on Disputes considering clearance for filing appeal R.P.Nos.892/2011 & connected cases -2- between Public Sector Undertakings or between Government and Public Sector Undertakings. As a result of this judgment of the Supreme Court, the Department is free to file appeal against Public Sector Companies, and so much so, the appeals were maintainable is the case of the Revenue. 3. However, the respondent's counsel brought to our notice that the COD rejected Revenue's application for permission to file appeals through separate orders dated 20/05/2005, 17/06/2006, 11/11/2008 & 20/08/2009, which happened more than 2 years prior to the date of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. In other words, when the Committee considered and declined permission to the Revenue, the Committee remained validly constituted under the orders of the Supreme Court, and so much so, we are afraid we cannot ignore those orders. We refused to entertain the appeals and rejected the same on 15/12/2009 for the reason that the Committee on Disputes declined permission. The Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above has not stated as to whether the approvals granted or declined by the Committee could be gone into by the appellate R.P.Nos.892/2011 & connected cases -3- Court in any case pending or disposed of. So much so, we feel the applications of the Revenue cannot be allowed. Learned Senior counsel further raised the contention that the main issue raised in all the appeals stands decided by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (326 ITR 174). However, since we are not restoring the appeals, we do not think the decision on merit by the Full Bench in favour of the Revenue will advance the case of the Revenue for restoration of the appeals disposed of by this Court on account of denial of approval by the Committee on Disputes more than 2 years prior to the date of the Supreme Court judgment above referred. Consequently, we dismiss all these Review Petitions. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (HARUN UL-RASHID, JUDGE) (V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE) jg "