The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another v. Noida Power Company Ltd
[Citation -2017-LL-0822-15]

Citation 2017-LL-0822-15
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another
Respondent Name Noida Power Company Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 22/08/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags question of law
Bot Summary: In these circumstances, the Department has come up in appeal for the assessment year 1994-95 whereas in respect of the other assessment years 1995-96 to 2009- 10, the assessee has preferred appeals. One of the substantial question of law which arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the Tribunal is justified in ignoring the decision of its co-ordinate Bench of the assessment year 1994-95 in passing orders in respect of the subsequent assessment years. In DLF Universal Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 306 ITR 271, the precise question of law before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was; whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in differing with the view taken by a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in respect of the same assessee for the assessment yearn 1985-86 The High Court observed that it is well settled that when one Bench of the Tribunal takes a view, then another Bench of the Tribunal cannot pass a contrary order but must, if it disagrees with that view, have the conflict resolved by referring the matter to a larger Bench. The judicial decorum and legal propriety demand that where a learned Single Judge or a Division Bench does not agree with the decision of a co-ordinate Bench, the matter should be referred to a larger Bench. In view of the aforesaid legal position, it is crystal clear that the Tribunal could not have taken a contrary decision in the subsequent years ignoring the decision of the co- ordinate Bench for the assessment year 1994-95. Accordingly, the orders of Tribunal dated 30.7.2008, 16.1.2009, 17.12.2015, 19.1.2012 and 12.10.2012 passed by the Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1995-96 to 2009-10, are hereby set aside and the matters are remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration of all the assessments afresh in accordance with law. Since the matters for the assessment years 1995-96 to 2009-10 are being remanded and are to be considered denovo, we consider it appropriate to sent back the matter of the assessment year 1994-95 also without going into its merit for being re-considered simultaneously so as to avoid conflicting decisions as had happened in the past.


Court No. - 3 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 113 of 2007 Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another Respondent:- Noida Power Company Ltd. Counsel for Appellant:- Krishna Agarwal,Gaurav Mahajan,Praveen Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Ravi Prakash Srivastava with Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 68 of 2009 Appellant :- M/S Noida Power Company Ltd. Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) & Another Counsel for Appellant:- R.P. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar with Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 69 of 2009 Appellant :- M/S Noida Power Company Ltd. Thru' Company Secy. Respondent:- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) & Others Counsel for Appellant :- R.P. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhananjai Awasthi with Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 70 of 2009 Appellant :- M/S Noida Power Company Ltd. Thru' Company Secy. Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) & Others Counsel for Appellant :- R.P. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhananjai Awasthi with Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 79 of 2009 Appellant :- M/S Noida Power Company Limited Thru' Company Secy. Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) & Others Counsel for Appellant :- R.P. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D. Awasthi with Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 80 of 2009 Appellant :- M/S Noida Power Company Limited Thru' Company Secy. Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) & Others Counsel for Appellant :- R.P. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhananjai Awasthi with Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 435 of 2009 Appellant :- M/S Noida Power Company Limited Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax And Others Counsel for Appellant :- R.P. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C. /It,Ashok Kumar with Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 441 of 2009 Appellant :- M/S Noida Power Company Limited Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) And Others Counsel for Appellant :- S. D. Singh,Ravi Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C./It,Ashok Kumar with Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 444 of 2009 Appellant :- M/S Noida Power Company Limited Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Prakash Srivastava,Ravi Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar with Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 445 of 2009 Appellant :- M/S Noida Power Company Limited Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Prakash Srivastava,Ravi Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar with Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 649 of 2012 Appellant :- M/S Noida Power Company Limited Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Prakash Srivastava,Ravi Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar with Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 59 of 2013 Appellant :- M/S Noida Power Company Limited Respondent :- Commissoner Of Income Tax (Appeals) And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Prakash Srivastava,Ravi Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Income Tax,Ashok Kumar with Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 131 of 2016 Appellant :- M/S Noida Power Company Limited Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. with Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 132 of 2016 Appellant :- M/S Noida Power Company Limited Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. with Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 133 of 2016 Appellant :- M/S Noida Power Company Limited Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. with Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 134 of 2016 Appellant :- M/S Noida Power Company Limited Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Heard Sri Kavin Gulati, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava and Sri Rohit Sthalekar, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Gaurav Mahajan alongwith Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for Department. These are sixteen income tax appeals under Section 260- of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). In all appeals, assessee is common and matter relates to assessment year 1994-95 to 2009-10. In assessment year 1994-95, Tribunal took decision in favour of assessee vide order dated 27.7.2006. In all subsequent years, Tribunal by subsequent decision took contrary view and held in favour of Department. In these circumstances, Department has come up in appeal for assessment year 1994-95 whereas in respect of other assessment years 1995-96 to 2009- 10, assessee has preferred appeals. One of substantial question of law which arises for consideration in appeal is whether Tribunal is justified in ignoring decision of its co-ordinate Bench of assessment year 1994-95 in passing orders in respect of subsequent assessment years. aforesaid controversy is no longer res intigra and has been settled by two Division Benches one of Delhi High Court and other of Bombay High Court on basis of earlier decisions of Supreme Court. We consider it prudent to refer to Division Benches of High Court which are latest in point of time and have considered earlier decisions of Supreme Court. In DLF Universal Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 306 ITR 271, precise question of law before Division Bench of Delhi High Court was; "whether Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in differing with view taken by co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in respect of same assessee for assessment yearn 1985-86?" High Court observed that it is well settled that when one Bench of Tribunal takes view, then another Bench of Tribunal cannot pass contrary order but must, if it disagrees with that view, have conflict resolved by referring matter to larger Bench. This is not matter of judicial propriety but also matter of judicial discipline. High Court in holding thus placed reliance upon Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija Vs. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 261. In Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India and others, 2010 (4) MLJ, matter related to central excise and two co-ordinate Benches of CESTAT took conflicting view on same point. High Court thus noted that in multi-judge Court, Judges are bound by precedents and procedure. judicial decorum and legal propriety demand that where learned Single Judge or Division Bench does not agree with decision of co-ordinate Bench, matter should be referred to larger Bench. It is subversion of judicial process not to follow this procedure. High Court again relied upon Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija Vs. Collector, Thane, AIR 1990 SC 261, Lala Shri Bhagwan Vs. Ram Chand, AIR 1965 SC 1767 and Mahadeolal Kanodia Vs. Administrator General of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 936 in laying down above principle. In view of aforesaid legal position, it is crystal clear that Tribunal could not have taken contrary decision in subsequent years ignoring decision of co- ordinate Bench for assessment year 1994-95. Accordingly, orders of Tribunal dated 30.7.2008, 16.1.2009, 17.12.2015, 19.1.2012 and 12.10.2012 passed by Tribunal in respect of assessment year 1995-96 to 2009-10, are hereby set aside and matters are remanded to Tribunal for reconsideration of all assessments afresh in accordance with law. Since matters for assessment years 1995-96 to 2009-10 are being remanded and are to be considered denovo, we consider it appropriate to sent back matter of assessment year 1994-95 also without going into its merit for being re-considered simultaneously so as to avoid conflicting decisions as had happened in past. This order is being passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases to get entire controversy in respect of all assessment years re- settled. In view of aforesaid, all appeals stand disposed of. Order Date :- 22.8.2017 /V Kumar Commissioner of Income-tax & Another v. Noida Power Company Ltd
Report Error