Smt. Hasumatiben Arvindbhai Patel,, Mehsana v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,, Mehsana

ITA 3450/AHD/2014 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 345020514 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN ABHPP6962A
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 3450/AHD/2014
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Hasumatiben Arvindbhai Patel,, Mehsana
Respondent The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,, Mehsana
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags reopening the assessment u/s 147
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2017
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 23-12-2014
Judgment Text
ITA NO. 3450/AHD/2014 HASUMATIBEN ARVINDBHAI PATEL A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND MAHAVIR PRASAD JM] I.T.A. NO.3450/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 HASUMATIBEN ARVINDBHAI PATEL .....APPELLANT 41 SARDAR PATEL SOCIETY RADHANPUR ROAD MEHSANA 384 002 [PAN : ABHPP 6962 A] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER .RESPONDENT WARD-1 MEHSANA APPEARANCES BY: HARDIK VORA FOR THE APPELLANT JAYANT JHAVERI FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 29.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 30.11.2017 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 1 ST OCTOBER 2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) GANDHINAGAR AH MEDABAD IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 14 7 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. GRIEVANCES RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 1 2 & 3 WHICH ARE THE ONLY GROUNDS PRESSED BEFORE US ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 1 47 OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 1 47 OF THE ACT EVEN WHEN CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED U/S 151 WAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 3450/AHD/2014 HASUMATIBEN ARVINDBHAI PATEL A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE 2 OF 7 3. THE APPELLANT SAYS AND SUBMITS THAT THE AO FO RWARDED THE PROPOSAL FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT TO CIT GANDHINAGAR FOR HIS APPROVAL THROUGH JCIT. THE JCIT EXPRESSED SATISFACTION ABOUT THE RECORDING OF REASONS AND FORWARDED TO CIT. THE CIT APPROVED THE PROPOSAL ON 30-03-2011 AND REC EIVED BY THE AO ON 04-04- 2011. THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED ON 30 -03-2011. SINCE THE NOTICE ISSUED IS PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CIT IT IS B AD IN LAW. UNDER SECTION 151(2) THE AO IS REQUIRED TO TAKE APPROVAL OF JCIT BUT HE HAS NOT TAKEN JCIT APPROVAL AND HAS TAKEN APPROVAL OF CIT. NONE OBTAINING OF PERMISSION OF THE AUTHORITY AS PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW [GHANSHYAM K. KHABRANI V/S. A CIT 346 ITR 443 [MUM] AND CIT V/S. SPL'S SIDDHARTHA LTD. 345 ITR 223 (DEL)]. 2. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT WHATEV ER WE DECIDE IN THE CASE OF MAYURBHAI MANGALDAS PATEL VS. ITO (ITA NO. 3451/AH D/2014) WILL BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE HERE AS WELL. VIDE OUR ORDER OF EVEN DATE IN THE S AID CASE WE HAVE HELD AS FOLLOWS: 2. WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED IT AS A COVERED MATTER COVERED BY A SERIES OF ORDERS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES IN THE CASES OF ARVINDBHAI R. PATEL VS. ITO (ITA NO.228/AHD/2015; ORDER DATED 24.07.2017) BHARAT RAMJIBHAI PATEL VS. ITO (ITA NO.229/AHD/2015; ORDER DATED 04.09.2017) AND ARVINDBHAI RAMJIBHAI PATEL HUF VS. ITO (ITA NO.3448/AHD/2015; ORDER DATED 12.06.2017) AN D BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DSJ COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD VS DCIT [(2014) 41 TAXMANN.COM 151] IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL THESE CASES REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS QUASHED ON THE SHO RT GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBTAINED PRIOR APPROVAL FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT FROM COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WHEREAS AUTHORITY PRESCRIBED FOR SUCH APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 151 IS THE JOINT/ADDITIONA L COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. LEARNED COUNSEL THEN INVITES OUR ATTENTION TO THE F ACT THAT IT IS AN UNDISPUTED POSITION THAT THE APPROVAL IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN OB TAINED FROM THE COMMISSIONER. HE SUBMITS THAT SINCE THAT THE APPROVAL IS GRANTED BY AN AUTHORITY HIGHER AND OTHER THAN JOINT/ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER THE SAME IS VITIATED IN LAW. WE ARE THUS URGED TO QUASH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY RELIES UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITS THAT EVEN WHEN APPROVAL IS GRANTED BY THE C OMMISSIONER IT IS INHERENT PART OF PROCESS OF APPROVAL THAT THE JOINT COMMISSI ONER GRANTS THE APPROVAL AND EXPRESSES HIS SATISFACTION ABOUT THE REASONS. WE AR E THUS URGED TO CONFIRM THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. IN RESPONSE TO A SPECIFIC QUESTION PUT TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON WHETHER THE JOINT/ADDIT IONAL COMMISSIONER HAD ALSO GRANTED THE APPROVAL AND RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION HE SUBMITS THAT IN THE FORMAL NOTE INITIATED BY THE ITO THE JOINT/ADDITIONAL COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HAS EXPRESSED HIS SATISFACTION WITH THE REASONS BUT TH EN NOTWITHSTANDING THIS POSITION AND ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS CO-ORDINATE B ENCHES HAVE QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT THE APP ROVAL WAS GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER EVEN THOUGH STATUTORILY APPROVAL OF T HE JOINT/ ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER WAS REQUIRED. HE SUBMITS THAT IT CANN OT BE OPEN TO US TO DEVIATE FROM THE VIEWS SO TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCHES. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT WHATEVER BE THE INTERNAL PROCESSING EVENTUALLY THE APPROVAL IS GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND IT IS SUCH AN APPROVAL WHICH IS R ELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151. ITA NO. 3450/AHD/2014 HASUMATIBEN ARVINDBHAI PATEL A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE 3 OF 7 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF T HE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 4. WE HAD AN OCCASION TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE INTERNA L PROCESSING SHEET USED BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES FOR GRANTING APPROVAL FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WE UND ERSTAND THAT THIS INTERNAL PROCESSING SHEET IS A PART OF THE STANDARD OPERATIN G PROCEDURE IN THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT GENERALLY AND AT LEAST IN THE CHARGE OF THE COMMISSIONER CONCERNED. THIS INTERNAL PROCESSING SHEET HAS 13 COLUMNS AND SO AS TO DEMONSTRATE THE ACTUAL WORKING OF THE PROCESSING OF GRANTING SUCH A N APPROVAL WE ARE REPRODUCING BELOW SCANNED COPY OF THE PROCESSING SH EET IN THIS CASE: ITA NO. 3450/AHD/2014 HASUMATIBEN ARVINDBHAI PATEL A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE 4 OF 7 5. IT IS AN IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THE FACT THAT IN THE PROCESSING SHEET FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT IN COLUMN 12 THE ADDITIO NAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX MEHSANA RANGE HAS IN RESPONSE TO THE Q UESTION WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 8 OBSERVED THAT YES SATISFIED WITH THE REASONS- SD/- 28.03.2011 OF COURSE EVEN AFTER RECORDING OF THE ABOVE SATISFACTION THE FILE WAS PROCESSED FURTHER AND T HE SAME QUESTION WAS PUT AGAIN TO THE COMMISSION IN COLUMN 1. I REPLY TO THE QUE STION WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED B Y THE AO THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OBSERVED THAT I AM SATISFIED. ISSUE 148. SD/- 30.3.2011 5. LET US IN THE LIGHT OF THIS FACTUAL POSITION R EVERT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151 WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: 151 SANCTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE (1) NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISS IONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIO NER IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. (2) IN A CASE OTHER THAN A CASE FALLING UNDER SUB-S ECTION (1) NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY AN ASSESSING O FFICER WHO IS BELOW THE RANK OF JOINT COMMISSIONER UNLESS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY SUCH ASSESSIN G OFFICER THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. (3) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-SECTION (1) AND SUB-SEC TION (2) THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSIONER OR THE JOINT COMMI SSIONER AS THE CASE MAY BE BEING SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT FITNESS OF A CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF NO TICE UNDER SECTION 148 NEED NOT ISSUE SUCH NOTICE HIMSELF.] ITA NO. 3450/AHD/2014 HASUMATIBEN ARVINDBHAI PATEL A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE 5 OF 7 6. AS EVIDENT FROM THE PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE S TATUTORY PROVISION ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY TO SATISF Y HIMSELF THAT ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE; THAT IS ALL THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTI ON 151 EXPRESSION SANCTION OR APPROVAL REFERS TO. THE SANCTION CONSISTS OF RE CORDING THE SATISFACTION THAT ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT I S A FIT CASE FOR ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. WHAT IS MATERI AL IS THAT SUCH A SATISFACTION IS RECORDED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND IT IS THIS SATISFACTION WE MAY CLARIFY AT THE COST OF REPETITION WHICH IS STATUTORILY TRE ATED AS SANCTION IN THE HEADING OF SECTION 151. THE WORDS APPROVED OR SANCTIONED ARE NOT EVEN REQUIRED TO BE USED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY BECAUSE UNDER TH E SCHEME OF SECTION 151 IT IS SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITY ON THE REASONS RECOR DED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMEN T. THE USE OF WORDS THAT THE REASSESSMENT IS BEING DONE WITH THE APPROVAL OF T HE COMMISSIONER IS MEANINGLESS UNLESS THE ACTUAL SATISFACTION OF THE C OMMISSIONER IS ACTUALLY SEEN AND WE SEE THAT ACTUAL PROCESSING SHEET FOR SO CALL ED APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER IT IS PLAIN ON FACTS THAT THE SATISFA CTION ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IS NOT ONLY OF THE COMMISSIONER BUT ALSO OF TH E JOINT/ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CONCERNED. 7. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE J OINT/ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HAS CATEGORICALLY EXPRES SED HIS SATISFACTION ABOUT THE FACT THAT ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IT IS FIT CASE FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. THE REQUIREM ENTS OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 151 ARE THUS CLEARLY SATISFIED. MERELY BEC AUSE AN EVEN HIGHER AUTHORITY HAS EXPRESSED SIMILAR SATISFACTION DOES NOT OBLITER ATE THE SATISFACTION OF APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES. WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE APPEARS TO BE A PART OF THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE IN THE I NCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND IF THAT BE SO THERE CAN HARDLY BE A CASE IN WHICH THE COMMISSIONER HAS GRANTED THE APPROVAL FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND THE JO INT/ ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF THE RANGE CONCERNED HAS NOT RECORDE D HIS SATISFACTION TO THE EFFECT THAT ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IT IS A FIT CASE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. EVEN IF THERE IS ANY DEFECT IN THE PROCEEDINGS AS LONG AS IT IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT OF THE SAME IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SCHEME OF THE ACT SECTION 292B PREVENTS ITS BEING RENDERED INVALID ON THAT COUNT. SECTION 292B INTER ALIA CATEGORICALLY PROVIDES THAT NO .. PROCEEDING TAKEN IN PURSUANCE OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHAL L BE INVALID OR SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INVALID MERELY BY REASON OF ANY MISTAK E DEFECT OR OMISSION IN SUCH .. PROCEEDING IF SUCH .. PROCEEDING IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTEN T AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT . QUITE CLEARLY THEREFORE IT IS INDEED AN INHERENT PART O THE APPROVAL BEING GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER THAT THE JOINT/ADDITIONAL COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX EXPRESSES HIS SATISFACTION ABOUT THE REASON OF REOP ENING OF ASSESSMENT BEING SUFFICIENT TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AND TH US INITIATE THE REASSESSMENT PROCESS AND IN THE CASE BEFORE US THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER HAS COME TO THE LIGHT. IRONICALLY HOWEVER THIS ASPECT OF THE MA TTER IS NOT ADEQUATELY HIGHLIGHTED AND PROPERLY DEMONSTRATED IN MOST OF THE CASES BEF ORE THE JUDICIAL FORUMS AND ITA NO. 3450/AHD/2014 HASUMATIBEN ARVINDBHAI PATEL A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE 6 OF 7 THAT OBVIOUSLY IS THE REASON THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPROVAL IS OF THE COMMISSIONER CONCERNED AND NOT OF THE JOINT/ ADDIT IONAL COMMISSIONER. ALL THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS FILED BEFORE US FALL IN THE CAT EGORY IN WHICH THERE IS NOTHING ON THE RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE OR EVEN SUGGEST THAT TH E JOINT/ ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CONCERNED HAS RECORDED HIS SATISFACTIO N THAT ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS A FIT CASE FOR INITIATING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THESE PRECED ENTS BUT WE DO NOT FIND ANY REFERENCE TO THE FINDING THAT IN THOSE CASES SATISF ACTION OF THE JOINT/ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TO THE EFFECT THAT ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT WAS A FIT CASE FOR INITIATING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS ALSO ON RECORD. A DECISION RENDERED WITHOUT TAK ING NOTE OF THIS FACT CANNOT BE AN AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT EVEN WHEN SUC H A SATISFACTION BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY IS ON RECORD JUST BECAUSE SI MILAR SATISFACTION IS EXPRESSED BY THE HIGHER AUTHORITY IS ALSO ON RECORD REQUIREM ENTS OF SECTION 151 CANNOT BE TAKEN AS HAVING BEEN COMPLIED WITH. THE BINDING NA TURE OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IS ONLY FOR WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DECIDE AND NOT WHAT CAN BE INFERRED FROM THESE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. NOTHING THEREFORE TURNS ON T HESE PRECEDENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE. ON THE CONTRARY BEING SATISFIED THAT SANCTIO N ENVISAGED BY THE SCHEME OF SECTION 151 I.E. BY RECORDING SATISFACTION ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR INITIAT ING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS GIVEN BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY ON THE FACTS OF T HIS CASE THESE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ARE NOT CLEARLY RELEVANT IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT. 8. IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED REASONS SET OUT ABOVE W E ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE HYPER TECHNICAL GRIEVANCES RAISED BEF ORE US ARE DEVOID OF LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE MERITS. WE ACCORDINGLY REJECT THE SAME. 9. AS WE PART WITH THE MATTER WE MUST THAT WE HAV E TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT AS REASSESSMENTS AFTER REASSESSMENTS ARE BEING QUASHED BY THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES ON THE GROUND AS RAISED BEFORE US IN T HIS CASE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT TAKEN PAINS EITHER TO FOLLOWS THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE OR TO DEMONSTRATE TO US THAT THIS STANDA RD OPERATING PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED AND THERE CANNOT THUS BE A CASE IN WHIC H APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS OBTAINED WITHOUT THE SATISFACTION OF THE RANGE HEAD (I.E. CONCERNED JOINT/ ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) QUA THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT COMMISSIONER COULD HAVE GRANTED THE APPROVAL FOR REOPENING. IT I S FOR THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES TO PRESENT TO THE JUDICIAL FORUMS THE ACTUAL FACTS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES TO THE JUDICIAL FORUMS AND THUS PROPERLY ASSIST THESE FORUMS IN DISPENSING JUSTICE TO THE PARTIES. IT IS EXTREMELY PAINFUL TO US TO DEPAR T FROM THE VIEWS THAT THE COORDINATE BENCHES HAVE TAKEN IN THE EARLIER CASES OR TO DISTINGUISH THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE COURTS ABOVE BUT THEN AS COM PLETE FACTS HAVING COME TO LIGHT AND DULY EVIDENCED BEFORE US WE CANNOT KNO WINGLY PERPETUATE THE ERRORS IN THE NAME OF REVERENCE TO BINDING JUDICIAL PRECED ENTS. IN THE CASE OF MUMBAI KAMGAR SABHA VS. ABDULBAHI FAIZULLBHAI AIR 1976 SC 1455 THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE IN THEIR INIMITABLE AND FELICITOUS WORDS OBSE RVED THUS ' IT IS TRITE GOING BY ANGLOPHONIC PRINCIPLES THAT A RULING OF A SUPERIOR COURT IS BINDING LAW. IT IS NOT OF SCRIPTURAL SANCTITY BUT OF RATIO-WISE LUMINO SITY WITHIN THE EDIFICE OF ITA NO. 3450/AHD/2014 HASUMATIBEN ARVINDBHAI PATEL A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE 7 OF 7 FACTS WHERE THE JUDICIAL LAMP PLAYS THE LEGAL FLAME . BEYOND THOSE WALLS AND DE HORS THE MILIEU WE CANNOT IMPART ETERNAL VERNAL VALUE TO THE DECISIONS EXALTING THE PRECEDENTS INTO A PRISON HOUSE OF BIGO TRY REGARDLESS OF THE VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND MYRIAD DEVELOPMENTS. REAL ISM DICTATES THAT A JUDGMENT HAS TO BE READ SUBJECT TO THE FACTS DIREC TLY PRESENTED FOR CONSIDERATION AND NOT AFFECTING THE MATTERS WHICH M AY LURK IN THE DARK '. LEST WE MAY BE BLAMED FOR DEPARTING FROM IN THE NA ME OF REVERENCE TO THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS A JUDICIAL FORUMS UNFLINCHING COMMITMENT FOR THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE ONCE THE FACTUAL MATRIX HAS ADMITTEDLY SHO WN A DIFFERENT SHADE OF TRUTH WE MUST NOT REMAIN CONSTRAINED BY THE JUDICIAL PREC EDENTS WHICH WERE GIVEN OBLIVIOUS OF THE FACTS NOW GLARING AT US. 10. GROUND NOS. 1 2 AND 3 ARE THUS DISMISSED AND AS WE HAVE STATED EARLIER AS WELL NO OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL WAS PRESSED BEFO RE US. 3. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF TH E MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY US AS ABOVE. OUR OBSERVATIONS AS ABOVE WILL APPLY M UTATIS MUTANDIS IN THIS CASE AS WELL. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE DISMISS THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR PRASAD PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD THE 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017 **BT* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF TAKING DICTATION: .. .8 PAGE MANUSCRIPTS OF HONBLE AM ARE ATTACHED ....29.11.2017.. LEAD CASE ITA NO.3451/AHD/2014.. 2. DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACED BEFORE THE DI CTATING MEMBER: ... 29.11.2017.................... ..... 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.: ... 30.11.2017...... 4. DT. ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: ... 30.11.2017 ........ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: . .... . 30.11.2017..................... 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: ..... 7. THE DT. ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASTT. REGISTR AR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: .................. ....... 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: ................. ........