2014 (8) TMI 954 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of deduction under section 80-IB(4)- Held that - issue has already been settled and decided in favour of the assessee up to the level of the Tribunal 2007 (11) TMI 441 - ITAT MUMBAI in the previous assessment years. Merely because the Department has preferred an appeal before the hon'ble High Court, that itself, cannot be a ground for raising the same dispute again in subsequent years. The hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Kisan Ratilal Choksey Share and Securities Pvt. Ltd. in 2014 (5) TMI 282 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has strongly discouraged the attitude of the Department for filing appeals on the issues which have already been settled and decided in the appeals pertaining to prior assessment years in the case of the very assessee. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation 1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , has categorically held that the principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not acceptable to the Department-in itself is an objectionable phrase-and is not a ground for not following the same unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. - No merit in appeal - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Entitlement of deduction under section 80-IB(4) for the assessment year 2010-11.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concerning the entitlement of the assessee to deduction under section 80-IB(4) for the assessment year 2010-11. The Revenue raised grounds of appeal questioning the decision of the CIT (A) in allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80-IB(4) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that the issue had already been settled in the assessee's favor for the previous assessment year 2007-08. The Department had contested the matter before the Bombay High Court, despite the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee for previous years.

The Tribunal observed that the Department's continued filing of appeals on the same issue, despite decisions in favor of the assessee by the appellate authorities, was not justified. Citing judicial discipline, the Tribunal highlighted that orders of higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by subordinate authorities. Referring to legal precedents, including a case decided by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of respecting settled decisions and discouraged re-litigating issues already decided.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal as the assessee's case was already settled by the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 2007-08. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the decision in favor of the assessee regarding the deduction under section 80-IB(4) for the assessment year 2010-11. The judgment emphasized the significance of judicial discipline and adherence to settled decisions by appellate authorities.