Judgment K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J. This appeal is filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras C Bench, Chennai dated 07.05.2009 made in ITA No.918/Mds/2008. 2. The assessee is a public sector company engaged in the business of generation and distribution of electricity besides production of lignite. The assessee company filed its return of income for the assessment year 1999-2000 on 212. 1999. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 13. 2002. Thereafter, a notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 13. 2005 was issued. The assessee objected to the assumption of jurisdiction, which was rejected by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved over the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who upheld the validity of reopening. However, on merits, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowance of additional compensation made by the Assessing Officer in computation of capital gains. Regarding the re-computation of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act, the Commissioner confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The assessee carried the matter on further appeal to the Tribunal, which set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and held that the reopening was not valid. Aggrieved against the above order, the appellant has come up before this Court by way of appeal by formulating the following question of law:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act to reopen the assessment to bring to tax the escaped income by way of capital gains was not valid?" 3. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 4. The Revenue, before filing an appeal against the assessee -a Corporation in this case Central Government Corporation has to obtain clearance from the Committee of Disputes. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 4. The Revenue, before filing an appeal against the assessee -a Corporation in this case Central Government Corporation has to obtain clearance from the Committee of Disputes. The Apex Court, in the case of ONGC Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation, Maharashtra Ltd.(reported in 2007 (7) SCC 39 ), after referring to the earlier decisions in the case of ONGC (I) Vs CCE, (reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 432); in the case of ONGC (II) Vs CCE (reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541) and in the case of ONGC (III) Vs CCE (reported in 2004 (6) SCC 437 ), wherein directions have been issued to set up a Governmental committee to resolve the dispute between the intragovernmental or intergovernmental disputes involving Government Departments or Government owned companies of the Central and State Governments rather than adjudicating the same before Courts of law and having regard to the fact of that particular case that the matter was pending since 1990 and considering the nature of the controversy, which is a recurring feature, directed that a Committee be formed to sort out the differences between the Central Government and the State Government entities. The composition of such committee is also stated to be as follows : 1. The Cabinet Secretary of the Union; 2. Chief Secretary of the State; 3. Secretaries of the departments concerned of the Union and the States; and 4. Chief Executive Officers of the undertakings concerned. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. Of A.P. Vs Collector and Others (reported in 2003 (3) Supreme Court Cases 472) held as follows:- "Disputes between Government Departments cannot be contested in Court. States/Union of India must evolve a mechanism for resolving interdepartmental controversies. Constitution of Committees suggested which should consist of Chief Secretary, Secretaries of the departments concerned, Secretary of Law and Secretary of Finance (where financial commitments are involved) whose decision should be binding on all departments concerned". 6. The Apex Court also held that it shall be the obligation of every Court and every Tribunal where such a dispute is raised hereafter to demand a clearance from the committee in case it has not been so pleaded and in the absence of the clearance, the proceedings would not be proceeded with. 6. The Apex Court also held that it shall be the obligation of every Court and every Tribunal where such a dispute is raised hereafter to demand a clearance from the committee in case it has not been so pleaded and in the absence of the clearance, the proceedings would not be proceeded with. The same has been reiterated in the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Delhi VI Vs M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeals Nos.4529 of 2008 etc. decided on 17. 2008. 7. In order to discharge that obligation, when we posed a question to the learned counsel as to whether such a clearance has been obtained from the Committee of Disputes, he admitted that such a certificate from Committee of Disputes has not been obtained. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as not entertainable in the absence of the clearance, however, by giving liberty to the appellant to move this Court after obtaining clearance from Committee of Disputes. No costs.