Wthout assigning reasons Tribunal cannot remand matter to A.O. on matters on which in earlier years it decided in favour of Assessee

Brief of the case

In the case of Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. Vs. UOI Assesse’s case for exemption under section 10A was allowed in earlier years by Tribunal. During the relevant year, the Tribunal disallowed assessee claim. Assesse challenged said order submitting that Tribunal without specifying as to why its decision in earlier years would not apply to assesse’s case, remanded matter back to A.O. for disposal afresh. Bombay High Court found Tribunal approach unjustified and restored matter to file of Tribunal for disposal on merits.

Facts of the case

• The assessee claimed exemption u/s 10A.
• The very issue was covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2005­2006 in the Petitioner’s own case. The departmental before the Tribunal also accepted the said position.
• During the relevant year, the Tribunal disallowed assessee claim, inspite of the agreed position between the parties, and by the impugned order yet remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination/determination.

Contention of Assessee

This is without in any manner even attempting to indicate why and how its earlier decision will not apply to the facts for the subsequent Assessment year. The Tribunal should not completely disregard its earlier order without some reason.

Held by High Court

• The assesse informed the court that the appeal for the subsequent Assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2007­-2008 is scheduled to come up before the Tribunal in the month of August 2015 and for A.Y 2010­2011 the date has yet to be fixed by the Tribunal.
• The assessee seriously apprehended, and in view of the court it was not unjustified that the Tribunal, while dealing with the Petitioner’s appeal for the subsequent years may also restore the issue to the Assessing officer for de novo examination disregarding the earlier order. All this would happen without the Tribunal at any point of time considering for what reason is it’s own order for the A.Y. 2005­2006 in respect of the Petitioner on identical facts, does not correctly decide the dispute. 6 It is in the aforesaid circumstances and primarily to correct the approach the Tribunal that the court is constrained to exercise extra­ordinary jurisdiction and set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 4 March 2015 and restore it to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal on merits, after addressing itself to it’s earlier order passed for the A.Y 2005­-2006 in respect of the Petitioners on merits. As far as the other issues decided by the impugned order, on merits, are concerned, it is open to the parties to adopt such remedies as are available to them in law. The impugned order was therefore set aside to the extent it has restored the issue of the petitioner’s claim of deduction under Section 10A of the Act to the Assessing officer.