AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vernment of Gujarat established in 1963. The appellant, in all the four appeals, is the Commissioner 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 January 31, 2006, in appeals filed both by the 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 the Income-tax Department and the assessee, as the Tribunal has without going into the merits of the matter non-suited the parties by refusing to admit the appeals filed before the Tribunal without approval of the Committee of Disputes, referred to by the Tribunal as the COD. 3. 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 ONGC v. Collector of Central Excise [1992]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Central Government and the Union of India should not fight their litigations in court by spending money on fees of counsel, court fees, procedural expenses and wasting public time. The courts are maintained for appropriate litigations. The courts' 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." 7. Therefore, this order was merely an order callin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia to set up a High Powered Committee (the Committee) to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of Government of India, Ministry and public sector undertakings of Government of India, and public sector undertakings in between themselves. 10. 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 with the aforesaid two orders made by the apex court. 11. The third order in line is again between the same two parties, viz., ONGC v. 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 (page 438): "4. There are some doubts and problems that have arisen in the working out of these arrangements which require to be clarified....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....servator of Forests was of the view that the opinion expressed by the Commissioner of 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 (page 481): "14. Under the scheme of the 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned and shall be the stand of the Government". 14. Thereafter, the apex court held that the Chief Conservator of Forests, independent of the State of Andhra Pradesh, had no authority or locus standi 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 the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records. 15. Thus, this judgment of the apex court clearly indicates in the first instance that the earlier three orders in the case of ONGC v. 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 the Union of India and a public sector undertaking of the State Government envisaged or covered by the directions made in the aforesaid three orders. Hence, the aforesaid directions in paragraph No.15, as reproduced hereinabefore in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of A. P. v. Collector [2003] 3 SCC 472 directing various State Governm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....between two States inter Se, the term "State" here to mean and include the State Government, a department of the State Government or an undertaking of the State Government. 18. Hence, it is not possible to expand the scope of 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 the 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. 19. The contrary view expressed by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. ITAT [2003] 259 ITR 686 and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. [2005] 274 ITR 35 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 als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Government. Such a constituted Tribunal is required to exercise powers and discharge the functions conferred on the Tribunal by the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, cannot exercise powers or discharge functions which are not conferred on the Tribunal by the Act. 22. 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 inasmuch 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 (P3) or (4), if the Tribunal is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal or the cross objections within that period. 23. Section 254 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rged by Benches constituted by the President of the Tribunal. Namely, it is the President of the Tribunal, who has the prerogative to constitute a Bench and such a Bench is required to exercise the powers and discharge functions conferred 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. 26. Hence, to regulate the procedure the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal), Rules, 1963 (the "ITAT Rules") have been framed. Under rule 4 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, it is provided that a Bench shall hear and determine such appeals and applications made under the Act as per the 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. 27. Rule 7 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules prov....