Case Law Details
Smt. Meena Kundra Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Agra)
Ld. CIT(A), while accepting the fact that no addition was made on the reasons recorded and the addition was made on the issue of capital gain arising on transfer of property, i.e., shops, due to dis allowance of cost of improvement incurred thereon, decided the matter against the assessee, relying on ‘Sri N Govindaraju vs. ITO’, 377 ITR 243 (Kar.). The reason for the CIT(A) to do so was that that ‘Sri N Govindaraju’ (Supra) is a decision rendered later than ‘Ranbaxy Laboratories vs. CIT’, 336 ITR 136 (Del) and ‘CIT vs. Jet Airways India Ltd.’, 331 ITR 236 (Bom), both of which decisions are in the favor of the assessee on this issue.
Having heard the parties, we find the reasoning adopted by the ld. CIT(A) to be not in accordance with law. Undeniably, neither ‘Sri N Govindaraju’ (Supra), nor ‘Ranbaxy Laboratories’ (Supra), nor ‘Jet Airways’ (Supra) has been rendered by the jurisdictional High Court so far as the assessee is concerned. In such a situation, it is well settled that where two non jurisdictional High Court’s decisions are opposed to each other, the one in favor of the assessee is required to be followed by the Tribunal. Reference, if any required, may be made to the decision of ‘CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.’, 88 ITR 192 (SC).
ORDER
PER, A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, JM:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
