- (1.) TAX Appeal No. 25 of 2002 has been preferred by the Revenue -Commissioner of Income -tax, Central Revenue Building, Ranchi, against the assessee Page 1288 M/s Metallurgical Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd., Ranchi, under Section 260A of the Income -tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 27th May, 2002, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna; Circuit Bench at Ranchi in I.T.A.No. 314(Pat)/91, relating to the assessment year 1985 -86. It appears that a defective appeal was preferred on 26th October, 2002. Although the defects, as pointed out by the office, were removed at a much later stage, no step was taken to get the appeal listed under the heading for admission.
(2.) THE other Tax Appeal No. 12 of 2003 has been preferred by the Revenue - Commissioner of Income -tax, Central Revenue Building, Ranchi, against the same assessee i.e. M/s Metallurgical Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd., Ranchi under Section 260A of the Income -tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 27th May, 2002, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna; Circuit Bench at Ranchi in I.T.A.No. 315(Pat)/91, relating to the assessment year 1986 -87. Though the said appeal was preferred after a delay of 290 days, the petition for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal was also filed after much delay. Today when the case was taken up, learned Counsel for the Assessee -M/s Metallurgical Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd., Ranchi submitted that the assessee being a Public Sector Undertaking of the Central Government, the Revenue -Department of Central Government should not have dragged the Public Sector Undertaking in the Court but should have obtained clearance from the High Power Committee, in terms with the Supreme Courts decision, rendered in the case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, Central Board of Directors (Tax) relevant portion of which is quoted hereunder: 8. Undoubtedly, the right to enforce a right in a court of law cannot be effaced. However, it must be remembered that courts are overburdened with a large number of cases. The majority of such cases pertain to government departments and/or public sector undertakings. As is stated in Chief Conservator of Forests Case it was not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution or CPC that two departments of a State or the Union of India and/or a department of the Government and a public sector undertaking fight a litigation in a court of law. Such a course is detrimental to public interest as it entails avoidable wastage of public money and time. These are all limbs of the Government and must act in coordination and not confrontation. The mechanism set up by this Court is not, as suggested by Mr. Andhyarujina, only to conciliate between the government departments. It is also set up for purposes of ensuring that frivolous disputes do not come before courts without clearance from the High -Powered Committee. If it can, the High -Powered Committee will resolve the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved the Committee would undoubtedly give clearance. However, there could also be frivolous litigation proposed by a department of the Government or a public sector undertaking. This could be prevented by the High -Powered Committee. In such cases there is no question of resolving the dispute. The Committee only has to refuse permission to litigate. No right of the department/public sector undertaking is affected in such a case The litigation being of a frivolous nature must not be brought to court. To be remembered that in almost all cases one or the other party will not be happy with the decision of the High -Powered Committee. The dissatisfied party will always claim that its rights are affected, when in fact, no right is affected. Page 1289 The Committee is constituted of highly placed officers of the Government, who do not have an interest in the dispute, it is thus expected that their decision will be fair and honest. Even if the department/public sector undertaking finds the decision unpalatable, discipline requires that they abide by it. Otherwise the whole purpose of this exercise will be lost and every party against whom the decision is given will claim that they have been wronged and that their rights are affected. This should not be allowed to be done.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Revenue -Commissioner of Income -tax, Ranchi, submitted that the Revenue has the right to enforce its right in a court of law and the same can not be taken away.;