Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Hyderabad v. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate
[Citation -2014-LL-1007-11]

Citation 2014-LL-1007-11
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Hyderabad
Respondent Name Janapriya Engineers Syndicate
Court HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 07/10/2014
Judgment View Judgment


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 446 OF 2014 DATE: 07.10.2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad. Appellant And M/s. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate, Hyderabad. Respondent This Court made following: HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 446 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon ble Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) Mr. S. Ravi, learned senior advocate, appears in response to pre-admission notice on behalf of assessee. We have heard Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for appellant. We admit appeal for statistical purpose on following substantial questions of law. In facts and circumstances of case, whether Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in setting aside matter to re-decide disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961, in consonance with view that Hon ble High Court may take in case of M/s. Merilyn Shipping and Transport despite fact that consequential set aside order on this issue has to be completed by Assessing Officer within one (1) year from financial year in which order of Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) is received? In facts and circumstances of case, whether Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in setting aside matter to re-decide disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 by following decision of Hon ble Tribunal in case of M/s. Merilyn Shipping and Transport despite fact that said order of Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) was stayed by Hon ble High Court? We find that learned Tribunal taking note of pendency of appeal in this Court, preferred by Revenue against decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in M/s. Merilyn Shipping & Transport in I.T.A. No.477/Viz/2008 dated 29-03-2012, directed Assessing Officer to re-decide issue after disposal of appeal by this Court. We are of view that until and unless decision of Special Bench is upset by this Court, it binds smaller Bench and coordinate Bench of Tribunal. Under circumstances, it is not open to Tribunal, as rightly contended by Mr. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel, to remand on ground of pendency on same issue before this Court, overlooking and overruling, by necessary implication, decision of Special Bench. We simply say that it is not permissible under quasi judicial discipline. Under circumstances, we set aside impugned judgment and order, and restore matter to file of Tribunal which will decide issue in accordance with law and it would be open to Tribunal either to follow Special Bench decision or not to follow. If Special Bench decision is not followed, obviously remedy lies elsewhere. appeal is thus allowed only on point of remand. We direct Tribunal to decide matter on remand afresh within period of two months from date of communication of this order. No costs. K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 07.10.2014 ES Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Hyderabad v. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate
Report Error