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.87/2006 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)[16.01.2020] 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 dated31.1.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (for short “theTribunal”), Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in ITA Nos.250 and 251/JAB/2004(wrongly mentioned in the appeal memo as ITA Nos.175 and 177/JAB/2004)in respect of the Assessment Years 2001-02, whereby both the appeals filedby the appellant-Revenue were dismissed. 2.This appeal was admitted on 20.9.2006 on the following substantial question of law for determination by this Court:- “Whether COD's approval is mandatory in cases whereassessee is not P.S.U. but D.D.O's who are disbursingthe payments to the employees and contractors andforced to deduct tax as per the provisions of ChapterXVII-B of the Act ?” 3.The identical question involved in the present case has been answered in 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 Anchal Digitally signed by ANCHAL KHARE Date: 2020.02.01 12:53:03 +05'30'