Commissioner Of Income Tax Bhopal vs. M/S Optel Telecommunication

PDF · subscribers
ITA/90/2010HC Madhya Pradesh16 January 2020Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE2 pages
For Petitioner: Sanjeev Tuli
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that clearance from the Committee of Disputes is not required for the department to file an appeal. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Electronics Corporation of India Limited vs. Union of India and others (2011) 3 SCC 404. The Court answered the substantial question of law in favour of the appellant-Revenue. Consequently, the impugned order of the ITAT was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the ITAT to re-decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The High Court allowed the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated December 29, 2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench. The ITAT had dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 1994-95. The High Court admitted the appeal on a substantial question of law concerning the requirement of clearance from the Committee of Disputes (COD) for the department to file an appeal before a competent appellate authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the clearance of the Committee of Disputes is required by the department for filing of appeal before the competent appellate authority? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee, M/s Optel Telecommunications Ltd., Bhopal, regarding this issue. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that clearance from the Committee of Disputes is not necessary for filing an appeal. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Electronics Corporation of India Limited vs. Union of India and others (2011) 3 SCC 404.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.90/2010 (1) THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR (Division Bench) I.T.A. No.90/2010 APPELLANT : Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Versus RESPONDENT : M/s Optel Telecommunications Ltd., Bhopal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: Hon’ble Shri Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal, Chief Justice Hon’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 of the Income Tax Act 1961(for short “the Act”), challenge is to an order dated 29.12.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (for short “the Tribunal”), Indore Bench, Indore in ITA No.528/Ind/2004 in respect of the Assessment Year 1994-95 whereby all the appeal filed by the appellant- Revenue were dismissed. 2. This appeal was admitted on 7.3.2014 on the following substantial question of law for determination by this Court:- ITA No.90/2010 (2) “Whether the clearance of the Committee of disputes is required by the department for filing of appeal before the competent appellate authority ?” 3. The identical question involved in the present case has been answered in MAIT No.64/2006 decided today and relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Electronics Corporation of India Limited vs. Union of India and others (2011) 3 SCC 404 this Court has held that COD approval is not necessary for filing the appeal. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant-Revenue. 4. For the same reasons as recorded in detail in MAIT No.64/2006, the order impugned in this appeal stands quashed. The matter is remanded to the learned 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 Digitally signed by ANCHAL KHARE Date: 2020.02.01 12:47:40 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →