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.68/2006 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.The appellant has claimed the following substantial questions of lawfor determination by this Court:- “1.Whether COD's approval is mandatory in caseswhere assessee is not P.S.U. but D.D.O's who aredisbursing the payments to employees and contractorsand forced to deduct tax as per the provisions ofChapter XVII-B of the Act ? 2.Whether learned ITAT was justified in ignoringthe provisions of Section 192 of the Act when it clearlyspeaks that person responsible for paying incomechargeable under the head “Salaries” shall at the timeof payment deducted income tax on the amountpayable at the average of the income tax computed onthe basis of the rates enforce for the financial year inwhich the payment is made on the estimated income ofthe assessee, under this head for that financial year ?” 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 of India and others - (2011) 3 SCC 404 this Court has held that CODapproval is not necessary for filing the appeal. Accordingly, the substantialquestion of law No. 1 is answered in favour of the appellant-Revenue.However, question No.2 as claimed does not arise at this stage as theTribunal has not adjudicated the issue on merits. 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