Case Law Details
Shri Homi K. Bhabha Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- Ordinarily neither the assessee nor the Revenue can be allowed to re argue the same issue over and over again, when it has already been decided by a coordinate bench of the tribunal. If such a course is allowed, then every single repetitive issue would require reconsideration time and again because the aggrieved party would always try to convince the later bench over its point of view. Following the earlier order or making a reference to the special bench depends on the satisfaction of the Bench about the correctness or otherwise of the earlier order and not that on the view point of the aggrieved party.
It is only when a subsequent bench, on being seized of the matter, finds itself unable to endorse the earlier view, either suo motu or on the arguments of the parties, that it may make reference for the constitution of the special bench. The party dissatisfied with the earlier view cannot compel the later bench to either take a contrary view or make a reference for the constitution of the special bench. Thus it follows that once a particular view is taken, the subsequent benches of the tribunal become functus officio on that issue, subject to the exceptions discussed supra. Needless to mention at this juncture that the party unconvinced with the tribunal order is not without remedy as the Act enshrines the provisions enabling it to appeal to the Hon’ble High Court against the order and convince it about its stand.
We are reminded of the well known latin maxim `stare decisis’, which means to stand by the things decided. It expresses the underlying basis of the doctrine of precedent, which, in turn, means to abide by the former precedent when the same points arises again in litigation. It has got the seal of approval from the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases including Union of India VS. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (726,727) (SC). The maxim stare decisis provides that when a point of law has been decided, it takes the form of a precedent which is to be followed subsequently and should not normally be departed from. A decision which is followed for a long time will generally be followed, even though the court before whom the matter arises afterwards, might be of different view.
Adverting to the facts of the present case, we find that the issue raised before us has been predominantly decided in the above referred two cases against the assessee after making thorough analysis of the issue, dealing with all the aspects now raised by the ld. AR before us. These cases do not fall into the exceptions, as discussed supra, justifying departure from the earlier view. We are, therefore, not inclined to revisit all the relevant facts and the legal position on it with a view to test the correctness of these orders. Respectfully following the rule of precedent, we refuse to take a contrary view from that expressed by the Mumbai Benches in the afore-noted cases. The disallowance is thus sustained and resultantly the impugned order is upheld.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
