Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. M/S Sisters Of St.Charles Seociety

ITA/93/2009HC Madhya Pradesh04 September 2015Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENON1 pages

For Petitioner: Sanjeev Tuli

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the substantial question of law framed in the present appeal did not arise for consideration. This was because a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal had already decided the substantial question of law against the Revenue in a previous case, ITA No. 14/2011 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Vs. Devi Sakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation). The Tribunal found no reason to grant further indulgence as the law laid down in the cited case was binding. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that a prior decision of a Coordinate Bench on a substantial question of law binds subsequent benches of the same Tribunal, obviating the need for re-litigation on the same point. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). There was a delay of 2 days in filing the appeal. The assessee was Shri Vinay Bhamore, represented by counsel. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The order or action under challenge is the ITAT's decision that led to the Revenue filing this appeal. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the Revenue filing an appeal with a delay, which the Tribunal considered.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the substantial question of law framed in this appeal arises for consideration, given a prior decision by a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal. The Revenue argued that the substantial question of law framed in this appeal did not require further consideration because it had already been decided against the Revenue by a Coordinate Bench of the Court in ITA No. 14/2011 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Vs. Devi Sakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation). The Revenue contended that in view of this precedent, no further indulgence was warranted. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I.T.A.No.93/2009 4.9.2015 Shri Vinay Bhamore, counsel for appellant. We have heard learned counsel for Revenue and even though there is delay of 2 days in filing the delay, but as the substantial question of law involved in this appeal has already been decided against the revenue by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in I.T.A.No.14/2011 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Vs. Devi Sakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation) there is no question of consideration of substantial question of law framed in this case. In view of above, no case is made out for any further indulgence, as the question of law framed does not arise for consideration, in view of the law laid down in the case of Devi Sakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation (supra). The appeal is therefore dismissed.

(RAJENDRA MENON) (S.K.SETH) M JUDGE JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →