9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1151 - HC - Income TaxPower of Tribunal when it disagree with earlier decision of Tribunal - TDS liability on trust - Tribunal not followed earlier decision which held that surplus disputed not taxable in the trust's hands and the assessee-trusts were not liable to deduct TDS - HELD THAT - In our considered view, there are only two methods of dealing such a situation. Firstly, if the decision is per incurium, a finding to the said effect has to be given. Secondly, the Court or the Tribunal can refuse to follow the decision by distinguishing it on the factual matrix. If for other than these two reasons, the Court or the Tribunal is of the view that the decision rendered earlier is not acceptable to it, then the option is to refer it to a Larger Bench of the Court or the Tribunal. The Methodology adopted by the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order, is incorrect. Therefore, we are inclined to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. We left it open to the Tribunal to take note of the decision in Sarvodaya Mutual Benefit Trust 2013 (11) TMI 1270 - ITAT CHENNAI and if for reasons acceptable to it, the decision can be applied to the facts of the case which is well open to do so, or for if any other reasons, the decision is found to be not acceptable to the Tribunal, then the matter may be referred to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal for consideration in an appropriate manner. We have not ventured into the merits of the matter, nor we have made an attempt to answer the substantial questions of law. It is made clear that when the matter is taken up for consideration, we are confident that the Tribunal will not be carried away or in any manner influenced by the observations made in the impugned order which we have set aside. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Issues:
- Appeal challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal - Substantial questions of law raised regarding tax liability, deduction of tax at source, and applicability of the principle of mutuality - Tribunal's rejection of the assessee's appeal without following a previous decision - Correct methodology for Tribunal's decision-making process Analysis: 1. Appeal Challenge: The appellant/assessee filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal's order dated 02.11.2017 for the assessment year 2009-10 was being contested. 2. Substantial Questions of Law: The substantial questions of law raised for consideration included issues related to tax liability, deduction of tax at source, and the applicability of the principle of mutuality. The Tribunal's decisions on these matters were being challenged by the appellant. 3. Rejection of Appeal: Before addressing the substantial questions of law, the Court examined whether the Tribunal could reject the assessee's appeal without following a previous decision in a similar case. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline in following higher appellate authorities' orders unless suspended by a competent court. 4. Correct Methodology: The Court highlighted the correct methodology for the Tribunal's decision-making process. Referring to past judgments, the Court emphasized the need for the Tribunal to consider previous decisions and provide valid reasons for not following them, either by distinguishing the cases based on factual differences or referring the matter to a Larger Bench. 5. Remand for Fresh Consideration: Based on the incorrect methodology observed in the Tribunal's decision, the Court decided to remand the matter for fresh consideration. The Court directed the Tribunal to reevaluate the case, consider the previous decision, and ensure that the observations made in the earlier order were not unduly influential. 6. Conclusion: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh assessment. The Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case, emphasizing the need for a fair and unbiased reconsideration by the Tribunal without being swayed by previous observations.
|
