TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... athy Ganesh For The Respondent : Suman Kumar (DR) ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, AM : The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-32, Mumbai dated 6.6.2014, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2010-11, which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 21.11.2012 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. In its appeal, assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal:- 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the Order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of the Assessing Officer charging to tax contribution of ₹ 47,65,000/- received from members, incidental to the sale of Plot ( Transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer brought to tax a sum of ₹ 47,65,000/-. 4. Before the CIT(A), assessee not only reiterated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer, but also pointed out that in assessee s own case for Assessment Year 2004-05, the Tribunal vide its order in ITA No. 3399/Mum/2010 dated 22.2.2012 has held that income by way of Transfer fee received from the members was exempt following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sind Co-op Housing Society (supra) . The CIT(A) disagreed with the stand of the assessee and has instead upheld the action of Assessing Officer by noticing that the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in a subsequent decision dated 4.9.2013 in the case of Hatkesh Co-op. Housing S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al continues to hold the field and has not been altered by any higher authority. The case before us is one where the CIT(A) has chosen not to follow the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case and has instead preferred to follow a contrary decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hatkesh Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. (supra), which has been rendered on a date subsequent to the date of the order of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee. In fact, in the case of Hatkesh Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. (supra), as observed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, a similar situation had arisen albeit at the level of the Tribunal. In that case too, the subsequent Bench of the Tribunal did not follow the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal on identical facts and a view has been taken on the issue then judicial discipline would demand that a subsequent bench of the Tribunal hearing the same issue should follow the view taken by its earlier Co-ordinate Bench. No doubt this discipline is subject to the well settled exceptions of the earlier order being passed per incurim or sub silentio or in the meantime, there has been any change in law, either statutory or by virtue of judicial pronouncement. If the earlier order does not fall within the exception which affects its binding character before a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, then it has to follow it. However, if the Tribunal has a view different then the view taken by its Coordinate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
