Itta/352/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S Janapriya Engineers Syndicate

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ANDTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENTTHE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NO.352 OF 2014 DATED: 24-06-2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-II,Hyderabad … Appellant And M/s Janapriya Engineers Syndicate … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NO.352 OF 2014 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) Mr. S. Ravi, learned senior advocate, appears in response tothe pre-admission notice on behalf of the assessee. We have heardMr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. We admit the appeal for statistical purpose on the followingsubstantial question of law. “Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in law on the factsand circumstances of this case in passing order of remand for re-decision ignoring the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal on theissue though the appeal against the same is pending adjudicationbefore the Hon’ble Court ?” 3. We find that the learned Tribunal taking note of the pendencyof the appeal in this Court, preferred by the Revenue against thedecision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Merilyn Shipping& Transport in I.T.A. No.477/Viz/2008 dated 29-03-2012, directed the Assessing Officer to re-decide the issue afterthe disposal of the appeal by this Court. 4. We are of the view that until and unless the decision of theSpecial Bench is upset by this Court, it binds smaller Bench andcoordinate Bench of the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, it is notopen to the Tribunal, as rightly contended by Mr. Narasimha Sarma,learned counsel, to remand on the ground of pendency on the same issue before this Court, overlooking and overruling, by necessaryimplication, the decision of the Special Bench. We simply say that it isnot permissible under quasi judicial discipline. Under thecircumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment and order, andrestore the matter to the file of the Tribunal which will decide the issuein accordance with law and it would be open to the Tribunal either tofollow the Special Bench decision or not to follow. If the SpecialBench decision is not followed, obviously remedy lies elsewhere. 5. The appeal is thus allowed only on the point of remand. Wedirect the Tribunal to decide the matter on remand afresh within aperiod of two months from the date of communication of this order. Nocosts. _____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 24-06-2014Svv