IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.04.2010 I.T.A. No. 483 of 2009 Life Insurance Corporation of India …Appellant Versus Additional C.I.T., Range-VI, Ludhiana and another …Respondents I.T.A. No. 484 of 2009 Life Insurance Corporation of India …Appellant Versus Additional C.I.T., Range-VI, Ludhiana and another …Respondents I.T.A. No. 485 of 2009 Life Insurance Corporation of India …Appellant Versus Additional C.I.T., Range-VI, Ludhiana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Parbinder Singh, Advocate, for Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant-assessee M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 483, 484 and 485 of 2009, which have been filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), challenging common order dated 24.8.2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (A) (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), in I.T.A. Nos. 932/CHD/2006, 931/CHD/2006 and I.T.A. Nos. 483, 484 & 485 of 2009 933/CHD/2006 respectively in respect of assessment year 2003-04. The respondents herein are Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-VI, Ludhiana and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ludhiana. As the dispute is between Union of India and an undertaking of the Union of India, a proposal for approving this case in the courts should have been there by the Committee of Disputes (COD) in the light of the observations made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise, (1992) 104 CTR (SC) 31 and Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise, (1994) 116 CTR (SC) 643. No information in that regard has been furnished and, therefore, it is not clear whether the proposal has been approved or not. In view of above, we dispose of these appeals by giving liberty to the appellant to file appropriate application for revival of the appeal if such a necessity arises on the basis of the decision taken by the Committee of Disputes. The appeals have been disposed of by adopting the same course as was adopted by the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., (2007) 293 ITR 362. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected appeals. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) April 6, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2