D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 15th June, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in I.T.A. No.291/RAN/2009 and I.T.A. No.291/RAN/2009 of the Assessment Years 2007-8 & 2008-09. By this order, the appeals of both the petitioner were dismissed mainly on the ground that there was no 'N.O.C.' from the Committee on Disputes.
(2.) Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2011) 3 SCC 404 , there is no need of a report from the Committee on Disputes, even if the dispute is between a Public Sector and the Government. Paragraphs 15 to 18 of the aforesaid decision read as under:- 15. By another order dated 20-7-2007 (ONGC-IV case) this Court extended the concept of dispute resolution by the High- Powered Committee to amicably resolve the disputes involving the State Governments and their instrumentalities. The idea behind the setting up of this Committee, initially, called a High-Powered Committee (HPC), later on called as Committee of Secretaries (CoS) and finally termed as Committee on Disputes (CoD) was to ensure that resources of the State are not frittered away in inter se litigations between entities of the State, which could be best resolved, by an empowered CoD. The machinery contemplated was only to ensure that no litigation comes to court without the parties having had an opportunity of conciliation before an in-house committee. (See SCC paras 3-4 of the order dated 7-1-1994 in ONGC-III case.) 16. Whilst the principle and the object behind the afore stated orders is unexceptionable and laudatory, experience has shown that despite best efforts of the CoD, the mechanism has not achieved the results for which it was constituted and has in fact led to delays in litigation. We have already given two examples here in above. They indicate that on same set of facts, clearance is given in one case and refused in the other. This has led a PSU to institute a SLP in this Court on the ground of discrimination. We need not multiply such illustrations. 17. The mechanism was set up with a laudatory object. However, the mechanism has led to delay in filing of civil appeals causing loss of revenue. For example, in many cases of exemptions, the Industry Department gives exemption, while the same is denied by the Revenue Department. Similarly, with the enactment of regulatory laws in several cases there could be overlapping of jurisdictions between, let us say, SEBI and insurance regulators. Civil appeals lie to this Court. Stakes in such cases are huge. One cannot possibly expect timely clearance by the CoD. In such cases, grant of clearance to one and not to the other may result in generation of more and more litigation. The mechanism has outlived its utility. 18. In the changed scenario indicated above, we are of the view that time has come under the above circumstances to recall the directions of this Court in its various orders reported as: (i) ONGC-II dated 11-10-1991, (ii) ONGC-III dated 7-1-1994, and (iii) ONGC-IV dated 20-7-2007.
(3.) In view of this decision, the judgment and order delivered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in I.T.A. No.291/RANC/2009 and I.T.A. No.292/RAN/2009 both dated 15th June, 2010 preferred by this petitioner-assessee is hereby quashed and set aside. Both these appeals i.e. I.T.A. No.291/RAN/2009 and I.T.A. No.292/RAN/2009 are hereby revived with the same numbers. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi will decide both these appeals on its own merits and on the basis of the evidences on record, as early as possible and practicable.;