9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he result, the stay petition of the assessee stands allowed. - S.P.No.65/CHNY/2019 in I.T(TP) No.54/CHNY/2018 - - - Dated:- 29-3-2019 - Shri N.R.S. Ganesan, Judicial Member And Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate For the Respondent : None ORDER PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee through this stay petition seeks stay of recovery of demand of ₹ 6,79,82,100/- comprising of tax of ₹ 4,37,62,536/- and interest of C2,42,19,564/-. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that appeal of the assessee for the immediate preceding assessment year stood already heard by this Tribunal on 20.03.2019. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 11.03.2019 in WMP No.7788 of 2019 in WP.6845 of 2019 had held as under at paras 6 7 of its judgment:- 6. The specific submission of the petition to the effect that the TP issue was covered by the order of the Tribunal has neither been adverted to nor adjudicated upon, despite being specifically raised by the petitioner. The decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in the case of Nokia Corporation vs. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) New Delhi (2007) 162 Taxman 369, refers to the effect of precedent as noted by the Supreme Court in several celebrated judgments, stating thus, 12. The Supreme Court stated, many years ago, in Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corpn. Ltd. [1991] (55) ELT 433 as fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no injustice in disregarding that order. As we have said earlier, such a view is destructive of one of the basic principles of the administration of justice. (p. 623) 14. Similarly, in Triveni Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [2007] 2 SCC 503, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that adjudicating authorities are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline. 15. Following the view laid down by the Supreme Court, we are faced with a situation where there is admittedly an order passed by the Special Bench of the Tribunal which considerably reduces the tax liability of the petitioner than what had been determined by the Assessing Officer. That there would be a reduction in the liability is evident from the decision given b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into account the tax lability of the petitioner for the entire period in respect of which the dispute is still alive, that is to say from the assessment year 1997-98 till the assessment year 2003-04. If this is done and an across the board review is taken of the tax liability of the petitioner as well as the amounts paid by the petitioner, as has actually been done by the Tribunal in its order dated 29-7-2005, then the petitioner would be entitled to a refund. On the other hand, if each year is taken separately, then of course there would be a liability against the petitioner for the assessment year 2003- 04 - but such a narrow or constricted view does not commend itself to us since it would unnecessarily deprive an assessee of good money d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
