Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Faridabad v. M/S Nhpc Ltd

Income-tax Appeal No.485 of 2010 *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Income-tax Appeal No.485 of 2010Date of decision: 28.2.2011 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad ...Appellant Versus M/s NHPC Ltd. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the respondent **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J (Oral). 1.This order will dispose of ITAs No.485, 486, 487 and 488of 2010 as it is stated that all the four appeals involve commonquestion. 2.ITA No.485 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenueunder Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against orderdated 16.7.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Delhi Bench 'F', Delhi in ITA No.2449/(DEL)/2008, for theassessment year 2004-05, claiming following substantial question oflaw:- “i).Whether on facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the ld. ITAT was right in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue by holding that no CODapproval had been obtained ignoring the decision ofthe Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case ofGujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Vs.ITAT reported in 314 ITR 14 wherein it has beenheld that there is no such requirement to approachthe committee as the assessee and the Income TaxDepartment cannot be asked to go and obtainclearance from a committee which has nojurisdiction over them and even the provisions of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 and the Income Tax(Appellate Tribunal) Rules do not permit exercise ofsuch powers by the Tribunal?” 3.The Assessing Officer made assessment under MinimumAlternative Tax under Section 115JB. On appeal the CIT(A) partlyallowed the appeal of the assessee on the quantum of addition ofincome. Further appeal of the Department before the Tribunal wasdismissed only on the ground that concerned committee constitutedin the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oil &Natural Gas Commission V. Collector of Central Excise (1992)104 CTR 31 (SC) had not given approval and in absence thereofappeal could not be entertained. 4.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the viewtaken by the Tribunal is not legally sound. Learned counsel for the assessee fairly accepts this position in view of judgment of Hon'bleSupreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1883 of 2011, ElectronicsCorporation of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, decidedon 17.2.2011. 6.Accordingly, question raised is answered in favour of therevenue and against the assessee. The appeals are allowed.Impugned orders are set aside. Matters are remanded to theTribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law.7.The parties may appear before the Tribunal for furtherproceedings on May 30,2011. 8.A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of eachconnected case. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge February 28, 2011Pka (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge