Itta/597/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Southern Rocks And Minerals Private Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OFDECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.597 OF 2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkamal Complex, Lakshmipuram Main Road,Guntur. ..... Appellant AND M/s. Southern Rocks and Minerals Private Limited,Industrial Estate, Kurnool Road,Ongole. .....Respondent The Court made the following : JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated01.07.2011 in relation to the assessment year 2002-2003 on the following suggested questions of law: 1.The order of the Hon’ble Tribunal is contrary to law,material on record and vitiated by irregularities inexercise of jurisdiction.material on record and vitiated by irregularities inexercise of jurisdiction. 2.In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether theHon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in allowing theappeals of the respondent assessee and directing theAssessing Officer to allow the subject deductions in themanner explained in the case of Associate CapsulesPrivate Limited, of the Mumbai High Court reported in237 CTR (Bom) 408, without considering the relatedmaterial facts, reasons and related statutory provisionsas mentioned in the orders of the Revenue?Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in allowing theappeals of the respondent assessee and directing theAssessing Officer to allow the subject deductions in themanner explained in the case of Associate CapsulesPrivate Limited, of the Mumbai High Court reported in237 CTR (Bom) 408, without considering the relatedmaterial facts, reasons and related statutory provisionsas mentioned in the orders of the Revenue? We have heard Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learnedcounsel for the appellant and gone through the impugnedjudgment and order of the Tribunal. We find that the issueinvolved has been decided by the Mumbai High Court inAssociated Capsules (Pvt.) Ltd., (2011) 237 CTR (Bom)408 and (2011) (50 DTR 65). Learned Tribunal noticingthat the Authority below did not apply the decisionrendered by the Mumbai High Court, has directed that thematter be decided following the Mumbai High Courtdecision. Nothing has been shown before us that theJudgment of Mumbai High Court has been upset. Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, submits that since thejudgment is not rendered by the jurisdictional High Courtof the Tribunal, therefore, the said judgment may not bebinding. We are unable to accept this extreme argument.High Court is a superior court formed and/or deemed tohave been under the Constitution of India and decision ofthe High Court on law squarely binds all the subordinatecourts and also the Tribunal within the territory of India onthe same point, if such judgment is not upset by theHon’ble Supreme Court of India. Judgment of the HighCourt is also a precedent. Therefore, it cannot be said thatsince the judgment is not rendered by the jurisdictionalHigh Court, it cannot be made binding on the Tribunal,particularly the Tribunal is an inferior quasi judicial forum, itcannot afford to ignore the judgments of superior courtsnamely High Courts. We, therefore, reject this submission.Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No order as tocosts. As a sequel to the dismissal of the appeal, all thepending interim applications shall stand closed. ______________________ Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. ______________ Sanjay Kumar, J.