SHETRUNJAY DIAMOND,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-3(3)(4), SURAT

Since, the issues involved in these two appeals are common and identical, therefore these two appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.

737 & 738/SRT/2018/AY.2014-15 737 Shetrunjay & Radhakrishna Diamond

The appeal filed by the assesse in for AY.2014-15 is barred by limitation by fourteen (14) days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. We have heard the parties on this preliminary issue and having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit the appeal of hearing.

In the case of Radhakrishna Diamond, in for AY.2014-15, none appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of issuance of several notices. Since the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC), 41 taxmann.com 100 (Guj), therefore after hearing the Learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR) for the Revenue, we have heard the said appeal in ITA No. 738/SRT/2018.

At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri Suresh K. Kabra, invited our attention of the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by Division Bench of this Tribunal in & 234/SRT/2021 for AYs.2018-19 to 2019-20 in the case of Rekha R. Shukla whereby the issue relating to late payment of PF & ESIC has been discussed and remitted the issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the decision of SLP filed in the case of GSRTC (supra). The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the present appeals are squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, a copy of which was also placed before the Bench.

The Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Assessing Officer.

We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rekha R. Shukla (supra) vide order dated 31.03.2022. In this order, the Tribunal has inter alia observed as follows: “18. It is abundantly clear from the judgment of the Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of Thana Electricity Supply Ltd (Supra), that decisions of the High Court are binding on the subordinate Courts and authorities or Tribunals under its superintendence throughout the territories in relation to which it Page | 2 737 & 738/SRT/2018/AY.2014-15 737 Shetrunjay & Radhakrishna Diamond exercises jurisdiction. Hence, decision of the Hon`ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation(supra), is binding on us.

In the case of Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989) 178 ITR 548 (SC), the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that the doctrine of binding precedent has merit of promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions. As per the doctrine of precedent, all lower Courts, Tribunals and authorities exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions are bound by the decisions of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction these Courts, Tribunals & authorities functions. In the case of State of Orissa & Ors. v, M.D. Illyos, [2006] 1 SCC 275 the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that a decision is a precedent on its own facts and that for a judgment to be a precedent it must contain the three basic postulates: (i)A finding of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of fact is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the individual effect of the above. In the case of CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC), the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that it is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment, divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete "law". The judgment must be read as a whole and observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before the court.

From the above it is vivid that we have to follow the judgment of the Hon`ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation(supra).The mere fact, that further appeal (SLP) has been filed, before the Hon`ble Supreme Court against the judgment of Hon`ble Gujarat High Court, in no way, means that Gujarat High Court`s decision under consideration is not operational and effective. Unless and until the decision of Gujarat High Court is reversed by Hon`ble Supreme Court, the same has to be given due effect. Thus, judicial discipline demands that order of the Hon`ble Gujarat High Court should be followed by the Surat Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. “21. We have already noted that against the order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra), the SLP has been filed by the assessee, which has not been adjudicated yet therefore we are of the view that the issue may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter after taking into account the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as and when will be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore these appeals at this stage are dismissed. However, if the Supreme Court reverses the judgment in the case of the Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC [Supra], it would be open for the assessees to revive these appeals by filing an application for such purpose within three months from the date of the judgment.

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes.”

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.