LIC OF INDIA vs. ADDL. CIT RANGE -VI, LUDHIANA AND ANR.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the appeals without deciding the merits of the case. The Court observed that the dispute was between two entities of the Union of India and that a proposal for approving such a case in the courts should have been made by the Committee of Disputes (COD) in light of Supreme Court observations. As no information was furnished regarding COD approval, the Court was not clear whether the proposal had been approved. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of by giving liberty to the appellant (LIC) to file an appropriate application for revival of the appeals if such a necessity arose based on the decision taken by the Committee of Disputes. This course of action was adopted in line with the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. (2007). No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural ground.
What were the facts?
The appeals were filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) against a common order dated 24.08.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The ITAT's order pertained to assessment year 2003-04. The respondents were the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ludhiana. The High Court noted that the dispute was between two entities of the Union of India and observed that a proposal for approving such a case in the courts should have been made by the Committee of Disputes (COD), as per Supreme Court observations in ONGC cases. No information regarding COD approval was provided.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeals, involving a dispute between two Union of India entities, were maintainable without a proposal for approval from the Committee of Disputes (COD) as per Supreme Court directives in ONGC v. Collector of Central Excise (1992) and ONGC v. Collector of Central Excise (1994)? Assessee's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (LIC) regarding this procedural aspect. The High Court raised this issue based on Supreme Court pronouncements. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue regarding this procedural aspect. The High Court raised this issue based on Supreme Court pronouncements.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.04.2010 I.T.A. No. 483 of 2009 Life Insurance Corporation of India …Appellant Versus Additional C.I.T., Range-VI, Ludhiana and another …Respondents I.T.A. No. 484 of 2009 Life Insurance Corporation of India …Appellant Versus Additional C.I.T., Range-VI, Ludhiana and another …Respondents I.T.A. No. 485 of 2009 Life Insurance Corporation of India …Appellant Versus Additional C.I.T., Range-VI, Ludhiana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Parbinder Singh, Advocate, for Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant-assessee M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 483, 484 and 485 of 2009, which have been filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), challenging common order dated 24.8.2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (A) (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), in I.T.A. Nos. 932/CHD/2006, 931/CHD/2006 and
I.T.A. Nos. 483, 484 & 485 of 2009 933/CHD/2006 respectively in respect of assessment year 2003-04. The respondents herein are Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-VI, Ludhiana and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ludhiana. As the dispute is between Union of India and an undertaking of the Union of India, a proposal for approving this case in the courts should have been there by the Committee of 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 these appeals 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 appeals have been disposed of by adopting the same course as was adopted by the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., (2007) 293 ITR 362. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected appeals. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) April 6, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
