Binding Supreme Court ruling requires rectification before the Tribunal when a later order overlooks it.

The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had already decided the same controversy between the same parties by upholding additions on account of bogus sales and purchases. As the Tribunal's later order had been passed without noticing that binding ruling, the Revenue was held to have an available remedy by seeking rectification before the Tribunal so the earlier decision could be brought to its notice and the matter decided in accordance with law. The appeal was disposed of on that basis, with the Revenue directed to pursue rectification under section 254(2).

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue should be relegated to the remedy under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in view of the binding decision of the Supreme Court on the same controversy.

Analysis: The appeal under section 260A was considered in the light of the Supreme Court's decision between the same parties, which had upheld the addition of bogus sales and purchases. The Tribunal's later order, passed without noticing that decision, was viewed as one requiring the Revenue to approach the Tribunal by way of rectification so that the earlier binding ruling could be brought to its notice and an order passed in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The Revenue was directed to seek rectification under section 254(2) before the Tribunal and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---