income Tax Officer Vs. State Bank of SaurashtrA. (Also - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. these appeals have been filed by the revenue against the respective orders passed by the cit(a) in respect of the assessee, state bank of saurashtra which is a public sector undertaking.oil & natural gas commission vs. collector or central excise, the tribunal cannot proceed with the appeals unless clearance for prosecution of the appeals has been obtained from a committee consisting of representative from the ministry of industries, bureau of public enterprises and the ministry of law, we are informed that clearance has not been obtained.the learned departmental representative pavan ved has informed us that request has already been made to the committee for clearance, for which reminders were sent by letters dt. 23rd august, 1996 and 28th august, 1997. however, till date no clearance has been received. from the records of case we find the appeal, were blocked from time to time expecting to get clearance from the committee. therefore, in our opinion the appeals should not be postponed any more for indefinite period. accordingly, we decline to entertain the appeals and dismiss the same as not maintainable.3. however, in order to safeguard the interest of both the parties, we place it on record that the parties are free to agitate the issue before us upon receipt of sanction from the committee by presenting fresh appeals along with petition for condonation of delay.4. similar orders have been passed by different benches of the tribunal, which have been filed before us (ita no. 2291/mad/1990, asst.yr. 1986-87 in the case of dy. cit (spl. range-i), madras vs. indian bank, madras and ita no. 2013/ahd/1989, asst. yr. 1985-86 in the case of ito, wd-2(5), baroda vs. shri donald macindeor rep. by bhel, baroda).

Judgment:
1. These appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the respective orders passed by the CIT(A) in respect of the assessee, State Bank of Saurashtra which is a public sector undertaking.Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs. Collector or Central Excise, the Tribunal cannot proceed with the appeals unless clearance for prosecution of the appeals has been obtained from a committee consisting of representative from the Ministry of Industries, Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Ministry of Law, We are informed that clearance has not been obtained.

The learned Departmental Representative Pavan Ved has informed us that request has already been made to the committee for clearance, for which reminders were sent by letters dt. 23rd August, 1996 and 28th August, 1997. However, till date no clearance has been received. From the records of case we find the appeal, were blocked from time to time expecting to get clearance from the committee. Therefore, in our opinion the appeals should not be postponed any more for indefinite period. Accordingly, we decline to entertain the appeals and dismiss the same as not maintainable.

3. However, in order to safeguard the interest of both the parties, we place it on record that the parties are free to agitate the issue before us upon receipt of sanction from the committee by presenting fresh appeals along with petition for condonation of delay.

4. Similar orders have been passed by different Benches of the Tribunal, which have been filed before us (ITA No. 2291/Mad/1990, asst.

yr. 1986-87 in the case of Dy. CIT (Spl. Range-I), Madras vs. Indian Bank, Madras and ITA No. 2013/Ahd/1989, asst. yr. 1985-86 in the case of ITO, Wd-2(5), Baroda vs. Shri Donald Macindeor Rep. by BHEL, Baroda).