TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 97
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Income-tax. The petition and the tax-appeals are taken up for hearing together as the controversy involved in all the matters is one and the same and arises out of a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' (the Tribunal) dated 31.01.2006 in appeals filed both by revenue and the assessee before the Tribunal. The Assessment Years in question are 1988-89, 1994-95, 1996-97 and 1997-98. It is not necessary to set out the dispute between Income-tax Department and the assessee as the Tribunal has without going into merits of the matter non-suited the parties by refusing to admit the appeals filed before the Tribunal without approval of committee of disputes, referred to by the Tribunal as COD. Both on behalf of the petitioner-assessee and the Income-tax Department a grievance was made against the impugned order made by the Tribunal contending that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in law in not admitting the appeals by misunderstanding the Apex Court decision in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission & Anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 432. It was further submitted that the reliance by the Tribunal on the decision o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns in Court by spending money on fees of counsel, court fees, procedural expenses and wasting public time. Courts are maintained for appropriate litigations. Court's time is not to be consumed by litigations which are carried on either side at public expenses from the source. Notwithstanding these observations repeated on a number of occasions, the present cases appear to be an instance of total callousness. The letter of October 3, 1988, indicated that the Cabinet Secretary was looking into the matter. That has not obviously been followed up. As an instance of wasting public time and energy this matter involves a principle to be examined at the highest level. 4. The Cabinet Secretary is called upon to handle this matter personally and report to this Court within four weeks as to why this litigation is being conducted when the two sides are a public sector undertaking and the Union of India. The report of the Cabinet Secretary should be supported by an affidavit of a responsible officer. The matter be placed again before us on October 11, 1991." Therefore, this order was merely an order calling upon the Cabinet Secretary to handle the matter personally as regards litigation b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s between Ministry and Ministry of Government of India, Ministry and Public Sector Undertakings of Government of India, and Public Sector Undertakings in between themselves. Paragraph No.4 of the judgment cannot be read to mean that every Court and every Tribunal shall demand a clearance from the Committee even if the litigating parties are not answering the description of the litigants who are to go before the Committee, or when the Committee would have no jurisdiction and powers where one of the litigants would not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Committee, which has been constituted in compliance of the aforesaid two orders made by the Apex Court. The third order in line is again between the same two parties viz. Oil and Natural Gas Commission & Anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, 2004 (6) SCC 437 whereby the Apex Court, after referring to its earlier two orders, has sought to set at rest certain doubts and problems that arose in the working of the arrangement by observing as under: "4. There are some doubts and problems that have arisen in the working out of these arrangements which require to be clarified and some creases ironed out. Some doubts persist as to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Survey, Settlement and Land Records was not correct and thus filed a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the said decision. The pattedars had also carried the matter through the Civil Court by seeking a declaration in their favour and the said litigation also landed before the Apex Court by way of a Civil Appeal filed by the Chief Conservator of Forests. In the back drop of the aforesaid facts the Apex Court observed as under: "14. Under the scheme of Constitution, Article 131 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in regard to a dispute between two States of the Union of India or between one or more States and the Union of India. It was not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution or CPC that two departments of a State or the Union of India will fight a litigation in a court of law. It is neither appropriate nor permissible for two departments of a State or the Union of India to fight litigation in a court of law. Indeed, such a course cannot but be detrimental to the public interest as it also entails avoidable wastage of public money and time. Various departments of the Government are its limbs and, therefore, they must act in co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Andhra Pradesh, had no authority or locus to approach the Court by initiating legal proceedings in his own name. In so far as the dispute emanating from the suit proceedings is concerned, the Apex Court upheld the judgment of the trial Court and refused to take a view contrary to the statutory order made by Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records. Thus, this judgment of the Apex Court clearly indicates in the first instance that the earlier three orders in the case of ONGC Vs. Collector of Central Excise, referred to hereinabove, do not at any stage envisage a dispute between two Departments of the State Government, nor was a dispute between a Department of Union of India and a Public Sector Undertaking of the State Government envisage or covered by the directions made in the aforesaid three orders. Hence, the aforesaid directions in Paragraph No.15, as reproduced hereinabefore in case of Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. Vs. Collector & Ors. (supra) directing various State Governments to set up similar committees to resolve controversy arising between various Departments of the State, or the State and any of its undertakings. In fact, in compliance with s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....directions made by the Apex Court so as to include a dispute between a Department of the Central Government and a State Government Undertaking. Therefore, the impugned order of Tribunal suffers from an error apparent in law and cannot be sustained. It is also necessary to take note of the fact that none of the aforesaid five cases even remotely suggest that the Committee set up by the Central Government would have jurisdiction to consider resolution of such disputes between a State and the Union, respective Departments and Undertakings included. The contrary view expressed by Rajasthan High Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (supra) and Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., [2005] 274 ITR 35 (Delhi) does not appear to be a correct exposition of law and this Court is in respectful disagreement with the observations made therein. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has also in the case of Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and Anr., [2006] 280 ITR 388 (A.P.) expressed a similar view and disagreed with Rajasthan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot conferred on the Tribunal by the Act. Section 253 of the Act lays down under sub-Section (1) thereof as to which orders can an aggrieved assessee challenge by way of filing an appeal before the Tribunal. Section 253(2) of the Act permits the Commissioner to file an appeal as stipulated therein. Sub-section (3) of Section 253 of the Act provides the period of limitation within which the appeal can be filed. Sub-section (4) of Section 253 of the Act permits filing of cross-objections by the non-appellant, namely, the respondent. Sub-section (5) of Section 253 of the Act assumes importance in as much as it invests the Tribunal with discretionary powers to admit an appeal or permit the filing of cross-objections after the expiry of the relevant period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (3) or (4), if the Tribunal is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal or the cross-objections within that period. Section 254 of the Act lays down as to what orders can be made by the Tribunal. The said provision stipulates that after hearing both the parties to the appeal the Tribunal may pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. Meaning thereby, on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the Tribunal by the Act as laid down in Section 252(1) of the Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 255 of the Act provides that, subject to the provisions of the Act, the Tribunal shall have the power to regulate its own procedure in all matters arising out of the exercise of its powers or in course of discharge of its functions, including the places at which the Benches may hold sittings. Hence, to regulate the procedure Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal), Rules, 1963 (the ITAT Rules) have been framed. Under Rule 4 of the ITAT Rules, it is provided that a Bench shall hear and determine such appeals and applications made under the Act as per directions issued by the President vide general or special order. This Rule denotes the assignment of work to a Bench constituted under the Act. The Rule does not enlarge the scope of powers available to a Bench. Rule 7 of the ITAT Rules provides that the Registrar, or, the authorized officer shall endorse the date of presentation of the appeal and shall sign the endorsement. Vide Order No.1 of 1973 dated 01.10.1973 various Assistant Registrars of different Benches at various stations have been authorized to endorse on Memorandum of Appeal the....