Section 254(2) : Tribunal orders (in sister concern’s case) are binding on the Tribunal unless set-aside or stayed. A rectification application on the ground that the orders in the sister concern’s case are not correct is not permissible as it amounts to a review
Procter & Gamble Home Products Pvt. Ltd vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court)
(i) We note that the order of the Tribunal dated 6th June, 2016 while allowing Petitioner’s appeal, had relied upon the sister concern’s order passed by the Tribunal in respect of Assessment Years 1996-97 to 2000-01.
Admittedly, all the orders of the Petitioner’s sister concern relied upon by the order dated 6th June, 2016 had an issue with regard to the classification of rent/compensation being received on letting of property under the head ‘income from the house property’ or ‘income from other sources’.
Therefore, it followed the same. The order of the Tribunal in respect of its sister concern for Assessment Year 1995-96 was also before the Tribunal while passing the order dated 6th June, 2016.
(ii) Therefore, the rectification application of the Revenue calls upon the Court to reappreciate its understanding of the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of its sister concern for Assessment Years 1996-97 to 2000-01. This on the ground that the earlier orders did not correctly understand/ interpret the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of Assessment Year 199596 in the case of Petitioner’s sister concern. This, itself would in effect amount to Review. Therefore, outside the scope of rectification. Besides, it seeks to sit in appeal our order passed by its Coordinate Bench for Assessment Years 199697 to 2000-01. This is not permissible.
(iii) Moreover, the Revenue has filed appeals in the sister concern case for the Assessment Years 199697 to 200001 under Section 260A of the Act to this Court. The question raised therein is on the issue of appropriate classification of the rent/ compensation under the head ‘income from the other sources’ or under the head ‘income from the house property’. The aforesaid appeals has be admit and are awaiting consideration for final disposal. Till such time, as the orders of the Tribunal of its Coordinate Bench in respect of the Assessment Years 1996-97 to 2000-01 are set aside or are stay pending the final disposal, its ratio would, prima facie, continue to be binding. Therefore, even if the Revenue seek to contend to the contrary it would be a debatable issue. This cannot be a subject matter of rectification.
[button color=”” size=”” type=”outlined” target=”” link=”https://drive.google.com/file/d/176llfL9kwntaGuJ-Prc5gxYj1Mu37BiW/view?usp=sharing”]click here to read full judgement[/button][button color=”” size=”” type=”round” target=”” link=”https://thetaxtalk.com/”]home[/button] [button color=”” size=”” type=”round” target=”” link=”https://thetaxtalk.com/submit-article-publish-your-articles-here/”]Submit Article [/button] [button color=”” size=”” type=”round” target=”” link=”https://thetaxtalk.com/discussion-on-tax-problem/”]Discussion[/button]
