TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the reports and results obtained out of data processing are equal to manufacture and production of an article or thing, therefore, the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction under section 80-IA. Reliance on the following decisions was placed which are also enumerated in para 3 of the afore-mentioned order. (i) CIT v. Peerless Consultancy Services (P.) Ltd. [1991] 54 Taxman 68 (Cal.) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 248 ITR 178 (ii) CIT v. Computerised Accounting Management Service (P.) Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 502 (Ker.) (iii) CIT v. Trinity Hospital [1997] 225 ITR 178 1 (Raj.) (iv) CIT v. Technotive Eastern (P.) Ltd. [1997] 225 ITR 253 (Gau.) (v) CIT v. Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd. [1993] 201 ITR 17 2 (Cal.) (vi) CIT v. Ajay Printery (P.) Ltd. [1965] 58 ITR 811 (Guj.) (vii) CIT v. Southern Roadways Ltd. [2003] 133 Taxman 350 (Mad.) affirming the Madras High Court decision of CIT v. Comp-Help Services (P.) Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 722 (viii)Unreported decision of Mumbai Tribunal C Bench (ITA Nos. 1734 and 1735/M/2001) (refer 34 BCAJ 987-) order dated 18-1-2002 (ix) Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 252 ITR 401 3 (AP) 4. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee on this point. It is, no doubt, true that the judgments cited on behalf of the assessee refer to the assessees whose business was confined to data processing for their clients. Today, we have computerized accounting in the banks. In the case of computers, which existed during the relevant assessment year and even today, the operation of the computers in principle remains the same. That, commercial data is fed into the computers as inputs as per the requirement of various customers and the data is processed to get necessary information, computation and statements as outputs. These computers cannot be compared to calculators. Today, in matters of investments and security transactions, banks have a front office and back office. Today, under customer services, the banks render several services including providing information to customers on the basis of which the customers would make investments. All this is based on the print outs which constitute information, computations and statements. In the circumstances, we are of the view that all the three conditions of section 32A(2)(b)(iii ) are satisfied. Our view is supported by the judgment of the Madras High Court in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration by us and Bikram Singh s case [1997] 224 ITR 551 (SC), being a later pronouncement of the Supreme Court by a Bench of co-equal strength, it is binding on us. (2)Gujarat Housing Board v. Nagajibhai Laxmanbhai AIR 1986 Guj.81: In contradistinction to the abovesaid decision, we have catena of decisions which say that in respect of the decision of the Superior Court of co-equal benches, the later one prevails over the former. In Vasant Tatoba Hargude v. Dikkaya Muttaya Pujari AIR 1980 Bom. 341 a Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that in case of conflict between earlier and later decisions of Supreme Court where each Bench consists of equal number of Judges, the later decision should prevail. In Govindanaik G. Kalaghatigi v. West Patent Press Co. Ltd. AIR 1980 Kar. 92 the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court has definitely held that when there are two conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court, one given by the larger Bench should be followed and that if both Benches of the Supreme Court consist of equal number of Judges, the later of the two decisions should be followed by High Courts and other courts. We are in complete agreement with the principle laid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition that it is within the power of Tribunal to rectify mistakes in its order if the decision of jurisdictional High Court is not noticed by the Tribunal. The provisions of section 254(2) are applicable to such order. The decision of jurisdictional High Court even if rendered subsequently, would constitute a mistake apparent from the record investing an authority with jurisdiction to rectify the mistake. (3) Asstt. CIT v. Smt. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 1 (Punj. Har.) (Full Bench) To raise a proposition subsequent decision rendered by jurisdictional High Court renders the order amenable for rectification. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. We may point out that during the course of hearing of the appeals of the assessee, the three decisions of jurisdictional High Court in the cases of 1. R. Shroff Consultants (P.) Ltd. (supra), 2. Prudential Management Services (P.) Ltd. (supra), 3. Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. (supra) were not relied upon by either party. The Tribunal itself took note of the decisions in the cases of R. Shroff Consultants (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Prudential Management and Services (P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Emphasis supplied] 8. The other two decisions i.e., Nandanam Construction Co. s case (supra ) and Gujarat Housing Board s case (supra) are also expressing the same opinion. No contrary decision has been brought to our notice by the revenue. Therefore, the law is well settled that the later decision by a Bench of co-equal strength has a binding force even in a case where earlier decision was not considered in later decision. Thus, the later existing decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. (supra), is a binding decision which was required to be followed as on the date when this Tribunal rendered its decision. The date of order of Tribunal is 27th January, 2004 and the date of order of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. (supra) is 30th April, 2003 and it was also reported prior to the date of order of the Tribunal. Thus, the decision of Tribunal was rendered in contradiction of the existing binding decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. (supra). 9. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court is v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmed up at page 162 of the report as follows:- (a)The Tribunal has power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record on its own motion or on an application by a party under section 254(2) of the Act; (b)An order on appeal would consist of an order made under section 254(1) of the Act or it could be an order made under sub-section (1) as amended by an order under sub-section (2) of section 254 of the Act; (c)The power of rectification is to be exercised to remove an error or correct, a mistake and not for disturbing finality, the fundamental principle being, that power of rectification is for justice and fair play; (d)That power of rectification can be exercised even if a mistake is committed by the Tribunal or even if a mistake has occurred at the instance of party to the appeal; (e)A mistake apparent from record should be self-evident, should not be a debatable issue, but this test might break down, because judicial opinions differ, and what is a mistake apparent from the record cannot be defined precisely and must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case; (f)Non-consideration of a judgment of the jurisdictional High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
