2018 (7) TMI 1966 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - patent error in the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A allowing legally wrong claim of additional depreciation - Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the order passed by the Pr.CIT u/s 263 - HELD THAT - Tribunal allowed the Respondent Assessee's appeal before it by following the decisions of this Court in CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. 2015 (5) TMI 656 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and CIT (Central), Nagpur v. Murli Agro Products Ltd. 2010 (10) TMI 1052 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Therefore, the issue so far as this Court is concerned, the question on merits would stand concluded favour of the Respondent Assessee and against the Appellant Revenue. However, it is his submission that Karnataka High Court has in Canara Housing Development v. DCIT Circle 1(1) 2014 (8) TMI 642 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has taken a different view. But even if it so, that is of no avail. The Authorities within the State of Maharashtra are bound by the decisions of this Court and, therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. No substantial question of law

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2006-07.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the order dated 24.6.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for Assessment Year 2006-07. The appellant raised questions of law regarding the Tribunal's decision to quash the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act. The appellant also questioned the Tribunal's failure to acknowledge a patent error in the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, allowing a legally wrong claim of additional depreciation. The learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the Tribunal's decision was based on previous court decisions favoring the Respondent Assessee, citing cases such as CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. and CIT (Central), Nagpur v. Murli Agro Products Ltd. The counsel also noted a conflicting view from the Karnataka High Court but emphasized that authorities within Maharashtra are bound by decisions of the Bombay High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was upheld based on the precedents established by the Bombay High Court.

The Court found that the questions raised by the appellant did not give rise to any substantial question of law and, therefore, declined to entertain them. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with no order as to costs. The judgment highlights the significance of adhering to established legal precedents within a particular jurisdiction, emphasizing the binding nature of decisions made by higher courts on lower authorities within the same state.