TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal once having held that its decisions are binding on the lower authorities, was right in not setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in which the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had refused to follow the order of the Tribunal ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not allowing the appeal on the preliminary issue regarding binding nature of orders of the Tribunal on lower authorities and instead dismissing the appeal on the basis of the grounds which were raised 'without prejudice' to the grounds regarding preliminary issue ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Assessing Officer having granted refund under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) could not have in law issued notice under Section 143(2) and as such the order of assessment making addition was without jurisdiction. During the hearing of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee cited a decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Arihant Builders,. Developers and Investors Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (I. T. A. No. 1014/Ind of 1993) on July 19, 1994, wherein the Tribunal had held that where refund has been granted under Section 143(1)(a)(ii), no notice under Section 143(2) can legally be issued. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), however, declined to follow the above cited decision and was of the view that the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onson in Pierce v. Delameter (A. M. Y. p. 18.): 'a judge ought to be wise enough to know that he is fallible and, therefore, ever ready to learn : great and honest enough to discard all mere pride of opinion and follow truth wherever it may lead : and courageous enough to acknowledge his errors'. Further at page 140 of the Report, the court referred to the dissenting opinion of Justice Jackson in Massachusetts v. United States 333 US 611 : T see no reason why I should be consciously wrong today because I was unconsciously wrong yesterday'. Reference was also made to the observations of Lord Denning in Ostime v. Australian Mutual Provident Society [1960] AC 459 : 'The doctrine of precedent does not compel your Lordships to fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risdiction of the Tribunal. Dealing with this very aspect of the matter, the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. 1991ECR486(SC) emphasised (page AIR 1992 SC 712) : It cannot be too vehemently emphasised that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before them revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities. The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not proper. In para. 21 of their order, the learned Members have referred to certain decisions of the Supreme Court wherein the apex court has undertaken review of its own earlier decisions. However, the learned Members seem to have missed the point that the review was undertaken by a larger Bench. The legal position on the point is made luculent by the Supreme Court in the case of Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik [2002]254ITR99(SC) in the following terms (headnote) : Judicial discipline and propriety demands that a Bench of two judges of the Supreme Court should follow a decision of a Bench of three judges. If the Bench of two judges concludes that an earlier judgment of a Bench of three judges is so very incorrect th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|