Commissioner of Income tax, V. M/s. Southern Rocks and Minerals Private Limited

ITTA/597/2013

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which had allowed the appeals of M/s. Southern Rocks and Minerals Private Limited and directed the Assessing Officer to allow certain deductions. The Tribunal's decision was based on a precedent set by the Mumbai High Court in the case of Associate Capsules Private Limited. The appellant contested the applicability of the Mumbai High Court's decision, arguing that it was not from the jurisdictional High Court. However, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh rejected this argument, stating that the decisions of any High Court in India are binding on all subordinate courts and tribunals unless overturned by the Supreme Court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 719037 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Associated Capsules (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Mumbai High Court
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: B SARMA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2002-2003; High Court; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Legal Precedent; Tribunal
• Section: 237 CTR (Bom) 408; 50 DTR 65

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI 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 dated 01.07.2011 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 in exercise of jurisdiction. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in allowing the appeals of the respondent assessee and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the subject deductions in the manner explained in the case of Associate Capsules Private Limited, of the Mumbai High Court reported in 237 CTR (Bom) 408, without considering the related material facts, reasons and related statutory provisions as mentioned in the orders of the Revenue? We have heard Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal. We find that the issue involved has been decided by the Mumbai High Court in Associated Capsules (Pvt.) Ltd., (2011) 237 CTR (Bom) 408 and (2011) (50 DTR 65). Learned Tribunal noticing that the Authority below did not apply the decision rendered by the Mumbai High Court, has directed that the matter be decided following the Mumbai High Court decision. Nothing has been shown before us that the Judgment of Mumbai High Court has been upset. Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, submits that since the judgment is not rendered by the jurisdictional High Court of the Tribunal, therefore, the said judgment may not be binding. We are unable to accept this extreme argument. High Court is a superior court formed and/or deemed to have been under the Constitution of India and decision of the High Court on law squarely binds all the subordinate courts and also the Tribunal within the territory of India on the same point, if such judgment is not upset by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Judgment of the High Court is also a precedent. Therefore, it cannot be said that since the judgment is not rendered by the jurisdictional High Court, it cannot be made binding on the Tribunal, particularly the Tribunal is an inferior quasi judicial forum, it cannot afford to ignore the judgments of superior courts namely High Courts. We, therefore, reject this submission. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel to the dismissal of the appeal, all the pending interim applications shall stand closed. ______________________ Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. ______________ Sanjay Kumar, J. December 17, 2013 MAS "