TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Department. 3. While giving the effect to the orders of the ITAT consequential orders were passed by the Bench in all the cases one of which is reproduced as follows :- "The following question of law was referred to the Hon'ble High Court for its esteemed opinion vide R. A. No. 17 (Asr.)/1995 :- 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that order made under section 144B of the Income-tax Act was bad in law and the assessment made on 26-5-1984 is barred by limitation ?' 2. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 29-9-1997 decided the question in favour of the Department and against the asses-see. Respectfully following the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed." After the decision of the consequential order, the appellant filed Miscellaneous Applications requesting that the appellants should have been allowed an opportunity of being heard before passing the consequential order. The submissions of the Ld. Counsels of the appellants were accepted and Miscellaneous Applications were entertained and cases were listed for hearing. 4. The first issue decided by us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y imposes an obligation upon the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal in the light of and confirmably with the judgment of the High Court. Before the Tribunal passes an order disposing of the appeal, there would normally be a hearing. The scope of the hearing must of course depend upon the nature of the order passed by the High Court. If the High Court has agreed with the view of the Tribunal, the appeal may be disposed of by a formal order : if the High Court disagrees with the Tribunal on a question of law, the Tribunal must modify its order in the light of the order of the High Court: if the High Court has held that the judgment of the Tribunal is vitiated, because it is based on no evidence or that it proceeds upon conjectures, speculation or suspicion or has been delivered after a trial contrary to rules of natural justice, the Tribunal would be under a duty to dispose of the case conformably with the opinion of the High Court and on the merits of the dispute. In all cases, however, opportunity must be afforded to the parties of being heard." We are of the opinion that this judgment is to be read with the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of ITAT vs S. C. Cambatta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m and will also cause long drawn process of litigation. In all these cases, matters are as old as 18 years old. Now the Tribunal will decide the issues after 18 years and another 10 to 15 years will take for agitated matters to get settled. This to our mind will be total miscarriage of justice. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was dealing with the situation while deciding the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs Kartikey V. Sarabhai [1981] 131 ITR 42 / 7 Taxman 8. In the arbitadictum in this case, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed that if two questions arise before the Tribunal and one of which inter-locking with other, it is better for the Tribunal to decide the both. The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs Srinivasa Pitti Sons [1988] 173 ITR 306 and Commissioner of Income-tax vs Ramdas Pharmacy [1970] 77 ITR 276 and Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs Hyderabad Secunderabad Foodgrains Association Ltd. [1989] 175 ITR 574 / [1988] 41 Taxman 291 has held that the Tribunal should decide all the issues agitated before it. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grees with the view of the Tribunal, the appeal may be disposed of by a formal order. But if the High Court disagrees with the Tribunal on a question of law, the Appellate Tribunal must modify its order in the light of the order of the High Court. If, for example, the High Court has held that the judgment of the Tribunal is vitiated, because it is based on no evidence or because the judgment proceeds upon a misconstruction of the statute, the Appellate Tribunal would be under a duty to dispose of the dispute, and re-hear the appeal after giving notice to the parties and redetermine it in accordance with law. In Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay vs S. C. Cambatta and Co. Ltd., the Bombay High Court explained the procedure to be followed as under :- '. . . when a reference is made to the High Court either under section 66(1) or section 66(2) the decision of the Appellate Tribunal cannot be looked upon as final; in other words, the appeal is not finally disposed of. It is only when the High Court decides the case, exercises its advisory jurisdiction, and gives directions to the Tribunal on questions of law, and the Tribunal reconsiders the matter and decides it, that the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
