Judgment K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. These appeals are filed against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras C Bench, Chennai, 05.06.2009 passed in ITA Nos.2219 & 2220/Mds/08. 2. The respondent, Indian Overseas Bank is an assessee under the appellant. The relevant assessment years are 1985-86 and 2003-2004. For the said assessment years, the assessing Officer inter alia disallowed a part of interest claimed under Section 244 A and also leviied interest under Section 234 D in respect of assessment year 2003-04. Aggrieved over the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for both assessment years, who allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee following the earlier assessment years. An appeal was filed at the instance of the revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal relying on its own decision in the assessees own case in ITA.Nos.1902 and 1903/Mds/2005 held both the issues in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved against the above order, the appellant has come up before this Court by way of appeal by formulating the following questions of law:- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the revenue should pay interest on interest u/s 244 A where there is no inordinate delay in payment of refund? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Sec.234 D is not applicable even in respect of assessment year 2003-04?". 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, Indian Overseas Bank, has to obtain clearance from the Committee of Disputes (CoD). 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, Indian Overseas Bank, has to obtain clearance from the Committee of Disputes (CoD). The apex Court, in the case of ONGC v. City and Industrial Development Corporation, Maharashtra Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 39 , after referring to the earlier cases in ONGC (I) v. CCE, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 432; ONGC (II) v. CCE, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541; ONGC (III) v. CCE, (2004) 6 SCC 437 ; in which directions have been issued to set up governmental committee to resolve the dispute between the intra-governmental 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 the 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 has 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 v. M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., in Civil Appeals Nos.4529 of 2008 etc., decided on July 18, 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 CoD, he admitted that such a certificate from COD has not been obtained. Hence, the appeals are 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 CoD. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.