L I C INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
ITA/141/2007HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01072815200711 December 2007Author: MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal without deciding the merits. The Court observed that the dispute was between two undertakings of the Union of India and inquired about the status of a proposal sent to the Committee of Disputes (COD) for approval, citing relevant Supreme Court judgments. As no information was provided by the appellant regarding the COD approval, the Court granted liberty to the appellant to file an appropriate application for revival of the appeal if the necessity arose based on a decision by the Committee of Disputes. This course of action was adopted in line with the Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. (2007). No specific issue was decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Life Insurance Corporation of India, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated 10.11.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-B. This order was in relation to the assessment year 2000-01. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Patiala, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patiala. The High Court noted that the dispute was between two undertakings of the Union of India. The Court sought instructions from the appellant's counsel regarding any proposal sent to the Committee of Disputes (COD) for approval, referencing Supreme Court judgments in ONGC cases. No information was provided on this matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be decided on merits given the nature of the dispute between two Union of India undertakings, and if so, what is the appropriate course of action in light of the Supreme Court's observations in ONGC v. Collector of Central Excise (1992) and ONGC v. Collector of Central Excise (1994)? Assessee's contention: The assessee's counsel was asked to seek instructions on whether a proposal for approval had been sent to the Committee of Disputes (COD). No information was furnished by the assessee regarding this. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 141 of 2007 Date of Decision: 11.12.2007 Life Insurance Corporation of India …Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer, Patiala and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant-assessee M.M. KUMAR JUDGE, J. This is assessee’s appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), challenging order dated 10.11.2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-B (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), in I.T.A. No. 24/CHD/2006, in respect of assessment year 2000-01. The respondents herein are Income Tax Officer, Additional Ward No. 5, Patiala and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patiala. As the dispute was between Union of India and undertaking of the Union of India, we had granted opportunity to the counsel for the appellant to seek instructions as to whether any proposal for approval of this case has been sent to the Committee of I.T.A. No. 141 of 2007 Disputes (COD) in the light of the observations made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise, (1992) 104 CTR (SC) 31 and Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise, (1994) 116 CTR (SC) 643. No information in that regard has been furnished and, therefore, it is not clear whether the proposal has been approved or not. In view of above, we dispose of the appeal by giving liberty to the appellant to file appropriate application for revival of the appeal if such a necessity arises on the basis of the decision taken by the Committee of Disputes. The appeal has been disposed of by adopting the same course as was adopted by Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., (2007) 293 ITR 362. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) December 11, 2007 JUDGE Pkapoor 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →