IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 667 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN ITA.118/2009 DATED 16/12/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): /RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, TRIVANDRUM BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM. BY MR.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.NO.667/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A : COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 25/07/2006 OF THE COD. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN UL-RASHID & V.K.MOHANAN, JJJ. .................................................................... R.P.No.667 of 2010 in I.T.A.No.118 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011. O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. This Review petition is filed to review our judgment in I.T.A.No.118/2009 dated 16/12/2009 wherein following a Full Bench judgment, we allowed the Revenue's appeal on the issue raised against the respondent Bank. Since the appeal was disposed of at the admission stage, the respondent in that appeal, who is the review petitioner herein, did not bring it to the notice of this Court that the Committee on Disputes had vide order dated 03/08/2006 declined permission to the Revenue to file appeal. According to the Review Petitioner, if the order of the Committee on Disputes was brought to the notice of this Court, this Court would not have entertained the appeal as the same was not maintainable. R.P.No.667/2010 in I.T.A.No.118/2009 2 2. During hearing of this review petition, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue brought to our notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, (2011 (332) ITR 58), wherein the Supreme Court held that the Committee on Disputes had outlived its utility and so much so, clearance from the Committee on Disputes is not required for filing appeal. However, since the COD declined permission 5 years prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court and since the Honourable Supreme Court has not dealt with the effect of the Committee declining permission, we do not think the appeal could have been heard or decided on merits had the order of the COD been brought to our notice. The appeal though was disposed of on merit in favour of the appellant based on the Full Bench judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (326 ITR 174), we feel since the entertainment and disposal of appeal was under a mistaken assumption that the Revenue had obtained clearance from the R.P.No.667/2010 in I.T.A.No.118/2009 3 Committee on Disputes, the Review Petition has to be allowed recalling the judgment because admittedly the COD had declined permission to file appeal on 03/08/2006, and consequently, the appeal was not maintainable. We, therefore allow the Review Petition by recalling the judgment dated 16/12/2009 in the I.T.A. and by dismissing the Appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable for want of COD's approval. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (HARUN UL-RASHID, JUDGE) (V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE) jg