2013 (11) TMI 156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d by the assessee are directed against separate orders of CIT (A)-II, Hyderabad and they pertain to the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2009- 10. Since common issue is involved in these appeals, these are clubbed together and disposed of by this combined order for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessee has raised the following effective common grounds in all these appeals:- 1. The CIT (A) has erred in law and as to facts. 2. The ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the dividend declared and distributed to the subscribers required TDS to be made u/s 194A of the Act during the Financial year relevant to the assessment year 2005-06. 3. Since facts are similar and identical for all the years under consi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The assssee being aggrieved of the orders passed u/s 201 (1) and 201(1A) , preferred appeals before the CIT (A). 4. The CIT (A) relying upon his own order passed earlier which was confirmed by the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench vide its order passed in ITA Nos. 526 to 529/Hyd/2011 dated 29-9-2011 wherein it was held that the payment of dividend to the subscribers of chit does not partake the character of interest and accordingly the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194A. On the aforesaid finding, the CIT (A) held that the assessee is not liable for tax and interest u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act respectively. 5. The learned DR at the outset, fairly submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad B .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s follows:- No Tribunal of fact has any right or jurisdiction to come to a conclusion entirely contrary to the one reached by another Bench of the same Tribunal on same facts. It may be that the members who constituted the Tribunal and decided on the earlier occasion were different from the members who decided on the present occasion. But what relevant is not the personality of the officers presiding over the Tribunal or participating in the hearing but the Tribunal as an institution. If it is to be conceded that simply because of the change in the personnel of the officers who manned the Tribunal, it is open to the new officers to come to a conclusion totally contradictory to the conclusion which had been reached by the earlier officers .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X