TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (9) TMI 336
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....does not issue notice under s. 143(2) within one year from the end of the month in which block return is filed, it cannot be open to him to start the scrutiny assessment proceedings after the end of that period. It is submitted that as there is no contrary decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and as indeed by any other High Court, this Tribunal must follow the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court. Amongst other things, he invites our attention to the decision to that effect by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom). 3. Learned Departmental Representative, however, contends that decision of a non-jurisdictional High Court is not a binding precedent for us. Our attention is invited to the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. (1993) 112 CTR (Bom) 356 : (1994) 206 ITR 727 (Bom) wherein their Lordships have held so. Learned Departmental Representative submits that Godavaridevi Saraf judgment is no longer good law as it stands overruled by the later decision in the case of Thana Electricity Supply Ltd.'s case. It is contended that while a no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
......whether this Court, while interpreting an all India statute like IT Act, is bound to follow the decisions of any other High Court and to decide accordingly, even if its own view is contrary thereto, because of the practice followed in this Court. Because, if we are to accept this submission, it will be an exercise in futility to examine the real controversy before us...." 8. One of the propositions that their Lordships took note of was that "the decisions of the High Court on the subordinate Courts and authorities or Tribunals under its superintendence throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction (but) it does not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction". Their Lordships, in the same para, also noted that "A Division Bench of the High Court should follow the decision of another Division Bench of equal strength or a Full Bench of the same High Court", and "if one Division Bench differs with another Division Bench of the same High Court, it should refer the case to a larger Bench". Having thus noted the proposition, their Lordships proceeded to "analyse the decisions of this Court, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion Bench of the same strength in the case of Godavaridevi Saraf. Therefore, it cannot be open to a subordinate Tribunal like us to disregard any of the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, whether in the case of Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. or in the case of Godavaridevi Saraf. It is indeed our duty to loyally extend utmost respect and reverence to the Hon'ble High Court, and to read these two judgments by the Division Benches of equal strength of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, i.e. in the cases of Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. and Godavaridevi Saraf, in a harmonious manner. 11. Let us now take a look at the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of Godavaridevi Saraf. In this case, question before their Lordships was as follows: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of decision in the case of A.M. Sali Maricar & Anr. vs. ITO & Anr. (1973) 90 ITR 116 (Mad) the penalty imposed on the assessee under s. 140A(3) was legal?" 12. The specific question before their Lordships was whether the Tribunal, while sitting in Bombay, was justified in following the Madras High Court decision holding the relevant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ret that Godavaridevi Saraf's decision stands overruled by judgment in the case of Thana Electricity Supply Ltd.'s case, one cannot be oblivious to the fact that an interpretation is indeed possible to the effect that even non-jurisdictional High Court's judgment, for the reasons set out above, is binding on the Tribunal. This non-jurisdictional High Court's judgment is in favour of the assessee. Now, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 1973 CTR (SC) 177 : (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC), when two interpretations are possible, one in favour of the assessee must be adopted. For this reason, in our humble understanding, the plea of the assessee deserves to be accepted. 15. We may, however, add that the observations that we have made are particularly with reference to the legal position in the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, as the view so taken in Godavaridevi Saraf's case has not found favour with Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as well as Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the case of Patil Vijaykumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. (1985) 48 CTR (Kar) 41 : (1985) 151 ITR 48 (Ka....