2009 (6) TMI 652 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in treating the lease rent received from school building along with playground etc. as business income - since their Lordships have held this question to be a mixed question of law and fact and hence this court while hearing the appeal cannot decide the question for the first time. The Tribunal being the last court of appeal on facts has to undertake this task on facts involved in the case - It is for this reason the remand is called for to the Tribunal - The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision in the light of he law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Universal Plast Ltd. v. CIT (1999 -TMI - 5737 - SUPREME Court)

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of lease rent received as business income
- Failure of the Tribunal to consider the law laid down by the Supreme Court
- Necessity of remand for fresh decision based on Supreme Court's guidelines

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the treatment of lease rent received from a school building as business income. The court noted that the decision in this appeal would apply to other connected appeals involving the same substantial question of law and filed by the Revenue against the same assessee.

2. The primary substantial question of law in focus was whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the lease rent as business income. However, during the proceedings, it was agreed that two additional substantial questions of law arose from the impugned order. The court, with the consent of both parties, framed these additional questions related to the Tribunal's failure to consider the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a specific case.

3. The court emphasized the importance of considering the Supreme Court's decisions and held that the Tribunal's failure to do so in this case necessitated a remand for a fresh decision. The judgment highlighted that decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts and authorities in the country, and ignorance of such decisions while deciding a case can vitiate the decision.

4. It was acknowledged by both parties that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the specific case had relevance to the issue at hand. The court directed the Tribunal to reexamine the case in light of the Supreme Court's guidelines and emphasized that the Tribunal, being the final court of appeal on facts, was best placed to undertake this task.

5. Ultimately, the court answered the additional questions of law in favor of the Revenue and decided to remand the case to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. The judgment concluded by setting aside the impugned order and instructing the Tribunal to decide the case afresh, considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court.