Coordinate-bench precedent must be followed unless recognized exceptions apply; departures require recorded reasons or larger-bench reference

HC held the Tribunal's order unsustainable and allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee. The Court ruled that a subsequent Tribunal bench must follow an earlier coordinate-bench decision on identical facts unless one of the recognized exceptions applies; if it departs, it must record reasons showing which exception applies or seek constitution of a larger bench via the Tribunal President. The Tribunal's failure to adhere to this discipline in respect of mutuality treatment of transfer fees and TDR premium rendered its order invalid.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging common order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for multiple Assessment Years. Substantial question of law regarding Tribunal's justification for differing view without reference to larger bench.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to multiple appeals challenging a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) for various Assessment Years. The primary issue revolves around whether the Tribunal was justified in taking a view contrary to a decision of a Coordinate Bench without making a reference to a larger bench. The Counsel for both parties requested the appeals be disposed of at the admission stage due to the narrow compass of the issue.

The impugned order of the Tribunal referenced the appellant's submission that the issue in question was covered by a Coordinate Bench's order in their own case for certain Assessment Years. This order considered the application of the principle of mutuality regarding transfer fees and TDR premium received by the Assessee from its members. The Tribunal's order sought to take a different view from the Coordinate Bench's order, relying on a decision of the High Court. The judgment emphasizes the importance of judicial discipline, stating that a subsequent bench should generally follow the view taken by an earlier Coordinate Bench on the same issue, unless there are specific exceptions like changes in law. The impugned order was criticized for not providing reasons for departing from the earlier decision and was deemed legally unsustainable.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the appeal to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. The Court clarified that it did not assess the merits of the appeal, leaving all contentions open for further arguments before the Tribunal. The substantial question was answered in favor of the Appellant Assessee, and the appeals were disposed of without any order as to costs.

---