Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 v. M/S Central Bank Of India

rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYAPPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO.11580 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax-2.. Petitioner vs. M/s Central Bank of India .. Respondent ----- Mr.Suresh Kumar for Petitioner Mr.F.Irani i/bMr.A.K.Jasani for Respondent CORAM : M.S.SANKLECHA & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ DATED : 23 JULY, 2014 P. C. This petition by the petitioner revenue challenges the order dated 5.7.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) dismissing the petitioner's Misc.Application under section 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act (the Act). By the aforesaid Misc.Application the petitioner-revenue sought to recall the order of the Tribunal dated 20.2.2008 passed in relation to A.Y.1996-97. 2. On 20.2.2008 the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal for A.Y.1996-97 recording as under : “3. Nothing was placed before us to demonstrate that what action the revenue took for obtaining the approval of COD. However, we may mention that in case the revenue desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall be free to move this Tribunal by appropriate petition for recalling the case and if the Bench is so satisfied about the reasons for the delay in getting the approval from COD then this order shall be recalled so as to treat this appeal as admitted.” 3. On 1.3.2011 the Supreme Court in the case of ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD held that the mechanism of obtaining an approval from the Committee on Disputes (COD) for prosecuting the appeals with regard to disputes inter see between the government departments/undertakings has outlived its utility and it must be done away with. 4. On the basis of the above decision in ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTDthe petitioner-revenue filed Misc.Application before the Tribunal on 6.12.2012 under section 254 (2) of the Act seeking a recall of the earlier order dated 20.2.2008. The basis of the above application is that no approval is required by the petitioner-Revenue of the COD for the purposes of prosecuting its appeal before the Tribunal. rng 311580.13 5. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 5.7.2013 dismissed the petitioner's Misc.Application under section 254 (2) of the Act for recall of its order dated 20.2.2008. In the impugned order the Tribunal records the fact that the Misc.Application under section 254 (2) of the Act has been filed beyond the statutory period of 4 years provided under the Act to file a Misc.Application for rectification from the order dated 20.2.2008. Moreover, the Tribunal also records the fact that after the decision of the Supreme Court in case of ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD also the application has been filed after a delay of more than 11 months. When the matter was called out, we asked the petitioner's counsel whether or not the petitioner had applied to the COD for seeking its approval before filing its appeal to the Tribunal relating to A.Y.1996-97. This was in view of the fact that the Tribunal in its order dated 20.2.2008 had recorded the fact that nothing was placed before them to demonstrate that the revenue had taken action for obtaining approval of the COD. rng 411580.13 6. Mr.Suresh Kumar learned counsel appearing for the revenue on instructions states that the Revenue had not made any application to obtain approval of the COD before it filed its appeal for A.Y.1996-98 to the Tribunal. This inspite of the COD mechanism being very much in force at that time. The recall of its earlier orders in respect of ONGC by the Supreme Court in the case of ELECTRONICSCORPORATION OF INDIA LTDonly does away with the practice in view of the changed circumstances. The necessity of obtaining approval from COD which was in practice at the relevant time cannot be done away with on the ground that the Supreme Court has now held that the practice needs to be discontinued. rng 411580.13 6. Mr.Suresh Kumar learned counsel appearing for the revenue on instructions states that the Revenue had not made any application to obtain approval of the COD before it filed its appeal for A.Y.1996-98 to the Tribunal. This inspite of the COD mechanism being very much in force at that time. The recall of its earlier orders in respect of ONGC by the Supreme Court in the case of ELECTRONICSCORPORATION OF INDIA LTDonly does away with the practice in view of the changed circumstances. The necessity of obtaining approval from COD which was in practice at the relevant time cannot be done away with on the ground that the Supreme Court has now held that the practice needs to be discontinued. 7. In the above facts and circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the present petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (G.S.KULKARNI, J) (M.S.SANKLECHA, J) 511580.13