M/S. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD., Ahmedabad V. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4, Ahmedabad

MA 175/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7119 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S A BOHRA
• Keywords: Rectification of order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.175/AHD/2008 IN I.T.A. NO. 3933/ AHD/203 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01) MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD., 183/184, PHASE II, GIDC, VATVA, AHMEDABAD VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AABCM0644E (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI S N SOPARKAR, AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S A BOHRA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 23.09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.10.2011 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS M.A. IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED IN THE M.A. BY ATE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CITED VA RIOUS TRIBUNAL DECISIONS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AS PER WHICH THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE BUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT FOLLOWED THESE ORDERS AND GIVEN FINDING WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ORDERS IN EARLIER YEARS. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS L TD. VS CIT AS REPORTED IN 295 ITR 466 IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTI ON THAT NON CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDER OF A COORDINATE BENCH IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE JUDGM ENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SAYAJI I RON AND ENGG. CO. VS M.A.NO.175 /AHD/2008 2 CIT AS REPORTED IN 253 ITR 749 AND IT IS SUBMITTED THAT NON CONSIDERATION OF A BINDING DECISION OF A JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T ITSELF IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND THEREFORE, THE SAME SH OULD BE RECTIFIED. 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME CONTENTIONS WHICH ARE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE M.A. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT IS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE VARIOUS DECISIONS WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD. 3. AS AGAINST THIS, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT HERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDE RED IN THE CASE OF INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH PARK LABORATORIES LTD., VS A CIT AS REPORTED IN 212 ITR 01 (AT) AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KE RALA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS JOSE THOMAS 253 ITR 553. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD HAVE GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COU RT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT THAT RULE OF PRECEDENT IS AN I MPORTANT ASPECT OF LEGAL CERTAINTY IN THE RULE OF LAW AND THAT PRINCIP LE IS NOT OBLITERATED BY SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT WHEN PREJUDICE RESULTS FROM AN ORDER ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TRIBUNALS MISTAKE, ERROR OR OMISSION, THEN IT IS THE DUTY OF THE TRIBU NAL TO SET IT RIGHT. BUT IN THAT CASE, THE FACTS ARE THAT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ORDER OF A COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL BUT THE SAME WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. UNDER THESE FA CTS, THE ORDER WAS RECTIFIED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE U/S 254(2) A ND SUCH RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE WAS SET A SIDE BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT BUT ON FURTHER APPEAL, HONBLE APEX COUR T SET ASIDE THE M.A.NO.175 /AHD/2008 3 JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND RESTORED THE TRI BUNAL ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESS EE ON THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98, 1998-99 IN I.T.A.NO. 1165 AND 1166/AHD/2001 DATED 17.11.200 6 AND THIS FACT IS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN PARA 5. THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 6 OF THE TRIBUNAL O RDER ON THE BASIS OF DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH PARK LABORATORIES LTD. VS AC IT (SUPRA) AND ALSO ON THE BASIS OF A JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH C OURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS JOSE THOMAS (SUPRA). IN PARA 7 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DULY CONSIDERED THESE DECIS IONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-9 8 AND 1998-99 AND IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS ON THE BASIS OF ANOTHER TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 1999-2000 WHICH IN TURN FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF MADHUSUDAN INDUSTRIES LTD. IN I.T.A.NO. 2136/AHD.1997 AND 1925 /AHD/1997 DATED 06.07.2005 BUT IN NONE OF THE CASES, THE DECISION O F SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF INTERNATIONAL RESE ARCH PARK LABORATORIES (SUPRA) HAS BEEN REFERRED TO AND TAKEN NOTE OF. ON THIS BASIS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISREGARDED EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE AND FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBU NAL AND THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE O F CIT VS JOSE THOMAS (SUPRA). THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT THE TRIBUNA L HAD NOT IGNORED THE JUDGMENT CITED BEFORE IT AND HAD GIVEN REASONS FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE SAME. WHEN A DECISION OF DIVISION BENCH OF THE TR IBUNAL IS FITTED AGAINST THE DECISION OF DIVISION BENCH OF THE TRIBU NAL AND A DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT, THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN FOLLOWIN G THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DECISION OF HON'B LE HIGH COURT IN PREFERENCE TO THE DECISION OF A DIVISION BENCH OF T HE TRIBUNAL. UNDER M.A.NO.175 /AHD/2008 4 THESE FACTS, THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT REN DERED IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS (SUPRA) IS OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THAT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL DECISION CITED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS OMITTED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHEREA S IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE DECISION CITED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS DULY CONSIDERED AND IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE SAME IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED BECAUSE THE DECISION OF SPE CIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT CITED AND CONSIDERED IN THOSE DECI SIONS OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL IN THE PRESE NT CASE, HAS CHOSEN TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN PREFERENCE TO DECISIO N OF A COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE 2 ND DECISION CITED BY THE LD. A.R. IS THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF S AYAJI IRON & ENGINEERING CO. VS CIT (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, IT I S HELD BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THAT NO TRIBUNAL IN FACT HAS ANY RIGHT OR JURISDICTION TO COME TO A CONCLUSION ENTIRELY CONTR ARY TO THE ONE REACHED BY ANOTHER BENCH OF THE SAME TRIBUNAL ON THE SAME F ACTS. HENCE, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT IF THE FACTS ARE THE SAME, COOR DINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT COME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION CONT RARY TO THE ONE REACHED EARLIER BY ANOTHER COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL OF THAT VERY TRIBUNAL. BUT WE HAVE SEEN IN ABOVE PARA THAT IN T HE PRESENT CASE, THE FACTS ARE NOT THE SAME. THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECIS IONS WERE RENDERED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH PARK LABORATORIES (SUPRA), WHICH WAS RENDERED ON 25.07.1994 AND ALTHOUGH THE T RIBUNAL DECISIONS IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEARS WERE RENDE RED MUCH AFTER THIS I.E. ON 17.11.2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND 1 998-99 AND DATED 20.10.2006 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 BUT THIS DE CISION OF SPECIAL M.A.NO.175 /AHD/2008 5 BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS NEITHER BROUGHT TO THE NO TICE OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS, NOR THE SAM E WAS REFERRED TO OR CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS. WHERE AS, IN THE PRESENT YEAR, THE TRIBUNAL HAD CONSIDERED THIS EARLIER DECISION O F SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT OF HO NBLE KERALA HIGH COURT. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIE W IN THE PRESENT CASE ON THE SAME FACTS AND, THEREFORE, THIS JUDGEMENT OF HO NBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS ALSO OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRE SENT CASE BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FACTS ARE D IFFERENT. 6. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECI DED THIS ISSUE BY FOLLOWING A DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL AND JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT. 7. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 8. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST OCT., 2011. SD./- SD./- (D.K. TYAGI) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 21.10.2011 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD M.A.NO.175 /AHD/2008 6 1. DATE OF DICTATION 17/10 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 18/10 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S.19/10 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 21/10 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.21/10 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 21/10/2011 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. ..