Shri Mayurbhai Mangaldas Patel,, Mehsana v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2,, Mehsana

ITA 3451/AHD/2014 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed
Expert Summary: Reassessment proceedings couldn't be quashed just because AO had obtained prior approval from higher authority

Appeal Details

RSA Number 345120514 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AGPPP9786K
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 3451/AHD/2014
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant Shri Mayurbhai Mangaldas Patel,, Mehsana
Respondent The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2,, Mehsana
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags Jt. CIT approval not taken/taken
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2017
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 24-12-2014
Judgment Text
ITA NO. 3451/AHD/2014 MAYURBHAI MANGALDAS PATEL VS. ITO 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.3451/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 MAYURBHAI MANGALDAS PATEL .....APPELLANT 8 PRAKASH SOCIETY RADHANPUR ROAD MEHSANA 384 002 [PAN : AGPPP 9786 K] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 MEHSANA .RESPONDENT 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 . 147 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 A S 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) HA S ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPENING THE ASSESS MENT U/S 147 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) HA S ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPENING THE ASSESS MENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT EVEN WHEN CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED U/S 151 WA S NOT BEEN COMPLIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 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 ITA NO. 3451/AHD/2014 MAYURBHAI MANGALDAS PATEL VS. ITO A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE 2 OF 7 CIT. THE CIT APPROVED THE PROPOSAL ON 30-03-2011 AN D RECEIVED 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 BAD 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 OBTAIN ING OF PERMISSION OF THE AUTHORITY AS PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW [G HANSHYAM K. KHABRANI V/S. ACIT 346 ITR 443 [MUM] AND CIT V/S. SPL'S SIDDHARTH A LTD. 345 ITR 223 (DEL)]. 2. WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING LEA RNED 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 SHORT GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBTAINED PRIOR APPROVAL FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT FROM COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WHEREAS AUTHORITY PRESCRIBED FOR SUCH APPROVAL UND ER SECTION 151 IS THE JOINT/ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. LEARN ED COUNSEL THEN INVITES OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT IT IS AN UNDISPUTED POSI TION THAT THE APPROVAL IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE COMMISSIONER. HE SUBMITS TH AT SINCE THAT THE APPROVAL IS GRANTED BY AN AUTHORITY HIGHER AND OTHER THAN JOI NT/ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER THE SAME IS VITIATED IN LAW. WE ARE THUS URGED TO QUASH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY RELI ES UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITS THAT EVEN WHEN APPRO VAL IS GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER IT IS INHERENT PART OF PROCESS OF APP ROVAL THAT THE JOINT COMMISSIONER GRANTS THE APPROVAL AND EXPRESSES HIS SATISFACTION ABOUT THE REASONS. WE ARE THUS URGED TO CONFIRM THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. IN R ESPONSE TO A SPECIFIC QUESTION PUT TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON WHET HER THE JOINT/ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER HAD ALSO GRANTED THE APPROVAL AND RECO RDED HIS SATISFACTION HE SUBMITS THAT IN THE FORMAL NOTE INITIATED BY THE I TO THE JOINT/ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HAS EXPRESSED HIS SATISF ACTION WITH THE REASONS BUT THEN NOTWITHSTANDING THIS POSITION AND ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS CO-ORDINATE BENCHES HAVE QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE GR OUND THAT THE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER EVEN THOUGH STATUTORIL Y APPROVAL OF THE JOINT/ ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER WAS REQUIRED. HE SUBMITS T HAT IT CANNOT BE OPEN TO US TO DEVIATE FROM THE VIEWS SO TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE B ENCHES. 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. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE 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 FO R REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AT THE ITA NO. 3451/AHD/2014 MAYURBHAI MANGALDAS PATEL VS. ITO A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE 3 OF 7 REQUEST OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS INTERNAL PROCESSING SHEET IS A PART OF THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE IN THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT GENERALLY AND AT LEAST IN THE CHARGE OF THE COMMIS SIONER CONCERNED. THIS INTERNAL PROCESSING SHEET HAS 13 COLUMNS AND SO AS TO DEMO NSTRATE THE ACTUAL WORKING OF THE PROCESSING OF GRANTING SUCH AN APPROVAL WE ARE REPRODUCING BELOW SCANNED COPY OF THE PROCESSING SHEET IN THIS CASE: ITA NO. 3451/AHD/2014 MAYURBHAI MANGALDAS PATEL VS. ITO 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 QUESTION WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL 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 YES SATISFIED WITH THE REASONS- SD/- 28.03.2011 OF COURSE EVEN AFTER RECORDING OF THE ABOVE SATIS FACTION THE FILE WAS PROCESSED FURTHER AND THE SAME QUESTI ON WAS PUT AGAIN TO THE COMMISSION IN COLUMN 1. I REPLY TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY 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 O F THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CH IEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER 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 OFFICER W HO IS BELOW THE RANK OF JOINT COMMISSIONER UNLESS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY SUCH ASSESSING 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 PRINC IPAL COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSIONER OR THE JOINT COMMISSIONER AS THE CASE MAY BE BEING SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT FITNESS OF A CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 NEE D NOT ISSUE SUCH NOTICE HIMSELF.] ITA NO. 3451/AHD/2014 MAYURBHAI MANGALDAS PATEL VS. ITO 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 SATISFY H IMSELF 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 SECTION 151 E XPRESSION SANCTION OR APPROVAL REFERS TO. THE SANCTION CONSISTS OF RECORDING THE SATISFACTION THAT ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. WHAT IS MATERIAL IS THAT SUCH A SATISFACTION IS RECORDED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND IT IS THIS SATISFACTI ON WE MAY CLARIFY AT THE COST OF REPETITION WHICH IS STATUTORILY TREATED AS SANCTI ON IN THE HEADING OF SECTION 151. THE WORDS APPROVED OR SANCTIONED ARE NOT EVEN R EQUIRED TO BE USED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY BECAUSE UNDER THE SCHEME OF SECTION 151 IT IS SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITY ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE USE OF WORDS THA T THE REASSESSMENT IS BEING DONE WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER IS MEA NINGLESS UNLESS THE ACTUAL SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER IS ACTUALLY SEEN AND WE SEE THAT ACTUAL PROCESSING SHEET FOR SO CALLED APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER I T IS PLAIN ON FACTS THAT THE SATISFACTION ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IS NOT ONLY O F THE COMMISSIONER BUT ALSO OF THE JOINT/ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CONCERNED. 7. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE J OINT/ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HAS CATEGORICALLY EXPRESSED HIS SATIS FACTION ABOUT THE FACT THAT ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS FI T CASE FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. THE REQUIREMENTS OF APPROVAL UNDER SE CTION 151 ARE THUS CLEARLY SATISFIED. MERELY BECAUSE AN EVEN HIGHER AUTHORITY HAS EXPRESSED SIMILAR SATISFACTION DOES NOT OBLITERATE THE SATISFACTION O F APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES. WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE APPEARS TO BE A P ART OF THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE IN THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND IF THA T BE SO THERE CAN HARDLY BE A CASE IN WHICH THE COMMISSIONER HAS GRANTED THE APPR OVAL FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND THE JOINT/ ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER O F THE RANGE CONCERNED HAS NOT RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION TO THE EFFECT THAT ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS A FIT CASE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSM ENT. EVEN IF THERE IS ANY DEFECT IN THE PROCEEDINGS AS LONG AS IT IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFE CT OF THE SAME IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SCHEME OF THE ACT SECTION 292B PREVENTS ITS B EING RENDERED INVALID ON THAT COUNT. SECTION 292B INTER ALIA CATEGORICALLY PROV IDES THAT NO .. PROCEEDING TAKEN IN PURSUANCE OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF T HIS ACT SHALL BE INVALID OR SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INVALID MERELY BY REASON OF A NY MISTAKE DEFECT OR OMISSION IN SUCH .. PROCEEDING IF SUCH .. PROC EEDING IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE I NTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT . QUITE CLEARLY THEREFORE IT IS INDEED AN INHERE NT PART O THE APPROVAL BEING GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER THAT THE JOINT/ADDITION AL COMMISSIONER 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 MATTER IS N OT ADEQUATELY HIGHLIGHTED AND PROPERLY DEMONSTRATED IN MOST OF THE CASES BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FORUMS AND THAT OBVIOUSLY IS THE REASON THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL JUDI CIAL PRECEDENTS QUASHING THE ITA NO. 3451/AHD/2014 MAYURBHAI MANGALDAS PATEL VS. ITO A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE 6 OF 7 REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT THE APP ROVAL IS OF THE COMMISSIONER CONCERNED AND NOT OF THE JOINT/ ADDITIONAL COMMISS IONER. ALL THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS FILED BEFORE US FALL IN THE CATEGORY IN WHICH THERE IS NOTHING ON THE RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE OR EVEN SUGGEST THAT THE JOINT/ ADDIT IONAL COMMISSIONER CONCERNED HAS RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION THAT ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS A FIT CASE FOR INITIATING THE REASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THESE PRECEDENTS BUT WE DO NOT FIND ANY REFERENCE T O THE FINDING THAT IN THOSE CASES SATISFACTION OF THE JOINT/ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-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 DEC ISION RENDERED WITHOUT TAKING NOTE OF THIS FACT CANNOT BE AN AUTHORITY FOR THE PR OPOSITION THAT EVEN WHEN SUCH A SATISFACTION BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY IS ON REC ORD JUST BECAUSE SIMILAR SATISFACTION IS EXPRESSED BY THE HIGHER AUTHORITY IS ALSO ON REC ORD REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 151 CANNOT BE TAKEN AS HAVING BEEN COMPLIED WITH. THE BINDING NATURE OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IS ONLY FOR WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DECIDE AN D NOT WHAT CAN BE INFERRED FROM THESE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. NOTHING THEREFORE TURN S ON THESE PRECEDENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE. ON THE CONTRARY BEING SATISFIED THAT SANCTION ENVISAGED BY THE SCHEME OF SECTION 151 I.E. BY RECORDING SATISFACTI ON 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 THIS CA SE 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 BEFORE U S 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 QUAS HED BY THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES ON THE GROUND AS RAISED BEFORE US IN THIS CASE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT TAKEN PAINS EITHER TO FOLLOWS THE STANDARD OPERATIN G PROCEDURE OR TO DEMONSTRATE TO US THAT THIS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE WAS FOLLO WED AND THERE CANNOT THUS BE A CASE IN WHICH APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS OBTA INED WITHOUT THE SATISFACTION OF THE RANGE HEAD (I.E. CONCERNED JOINT/ ADDITIONAL CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) QUA THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR R EOPENING THE ASSESSMENT COMMISSIONER COULD HAVE GRANTED THE APPROVAL FOR RE OPENING. IT IS FOR THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES TO PRESENT TO THE JUDICIAL FORUMS THE A CTUAL 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 DEPART 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 COMPLETE FACT S HAVING COME TO LIGHT AND DULY EVIDENCED BEFORE US WE CANNOT KNOWINGLY PERPETUAT E THE ERRORS IN THE NAME OF REVERENCE TO BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. IN THE CA SE OF MUMBAI KAMGAR SABHA VS. ABDULBAHI FAIZULLBHAI AIR 1976 SC 1455 THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE IN THEIR INIMITABLE AND FELICITOUS WORDS OBSERVED THUS ' IT IS TRITE GOING BY ANGLOPHONIC PRINCIPLES THAT A RULING OF A SUPERIOR COURT IS BINDING LAW. I T IS NOT OF SCRIPTURAL SANCTITY BUT OF RATIO-WISE LUMINOSITY WITHIN THE EDIFICE OF FACTS WHERE THE JUDICIAL LAMP ITA NO. 3451/AHD/2014 MAYURBHAI MANGALDAS PATEL VS. ITO A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE 7 OF 7 PLAYS THE LEGAL FLAME. BEYOND THOSE WALLS AND DE HORS THE MILIEU WE CANNOT IMPART ETERNAL VERNAL VALUE TO THE DECISIONS EXALT ING THE PRECEDENTS INTO A PRISON HOUSE OF BIGOTRY REGARDLESS OF THE VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND MYRIAD DEVELOPMENTS. REALISM DICTATES THAT A JUDGMENT HAS TO BE READ SUBJECT TO THE FACTS DIRECTLY PRESENTED FOR CONSIDERATION AND NOT AFFECTING THE MATTERS WHICH MAY LURK IN THE DARK '. LEST WE MAY BE BLAMED FOR DEPARTING FROM IN TH E NAME OF REVERENCE TO THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS A JUDICIAL FO RUMS UNFLINCHING COMMITMENT FOR THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE ONCE THE FACTUAL MATRIX HAS A DMITTEDLY SHOWN A DIFFERENT SHADE OF TRUTH WE MUST NOT REMAIN CONSTRAINED BY THE JUD ICIAL PRECEDENTS 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 BEFORE US. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 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 FIT FOR PUBLICATION (JM) (AM) 1. DATE OF TAKING DICTATION: .. .8 PAGE MANUSCRIPTS OF HONBLE AM ARE ATTACHED ....29.11.2017.. 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: ................. ........