Appellant: Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jabalpur v. Respondent:northern Coal Fields Limited, Singrauli (Mp

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR (Division Bench) MAIT No.69/2006 APPELLANT: Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur Versus RESPONDENT:Northern Coal Fields Limited, Singrauli (MP) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: Hon’ble Shri Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal, Chief JusticeHon’ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri A. K. Shrivastava, Advocate and Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R (Oral)[16.1.2020] Per: Ajay Kumar Mittal, CJ In the present appeal preferred by the Revenue under Section 260-A ofthe Income Tax Act 1961(for short “the Act”), challenge is to an order dated26.10.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (for short “theTribunal”), Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in ITA Nos. 206 to 213/JAB/2003 andITA No.253(JAB)/2003 in respect of the Assessment Years 1989-90 to 1997-98 and 2002-03 respectively, whereby all the appeals filed by the appellant-Revenue were dismissed. 2.This appeal was admitted on 10.5.2006 on the following substantialquestion of law for determination by this Court:- “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal isjustified in dismissing the appeal in limine on theground that approval from High Powered CoordinationCommittee has not been taken when a question of lawwas posed by the revenue to the effect that Section 192of the statute clearly postulates that a personresponsible for paying income chargeable under thehead 'Salaries' shall at the time of payment deductincome tax on the amount payable at the average ofincome tax computed on the basis of rates enforced forthe financial year in which the payment is made on theestimated income of the assessee ?” 3.The identical question involved in the present case has been answeredin MAIT No.64/2006 decided today and relying upon the decision of theSupreme Court in Electronics Corporation of India Limited vs. Union ofIndia and others (2011) 3 SCC 404 this Court has held that COD approvalis not necessary for filing the appeal. Accordingly, the substantial question oflaw is answered in favour of the appellant-Revenue. 4.For the same reasons as recorded in detail in MAIT No.64/2006, theorder impugned in this appeal stands quashed. The matter is remanded to thelearned Tribunal to re-decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. 5.Accordingly, the present appeal stands allowed and disposed of. (Ajay Kumar Mittal) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)Chief Justice Judge AnchalDigitally signed by ANCHAL KHARE Date: 2020.02.01 12:52:33 +05'30'