Consistency in connected appeals required remand after the Tribunal took a contrary view to accepted earlier orders.

Where materially identical connected appeals had been decided on a common footing and the department had accepted those outcomes, the Tribunal could not take a contrary view in the assessee's own appeal. The High Court held that such inconsistency required reconsideration of the appeal in line with the orders already passed in the connected matters and the department's accepted stand. The impugned Tribunal order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order was liable to be set aside and the appeal remitted for reconsideration in view of contradictory orders passed in connected matters.

Analysis: The earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the assessee's case had been followed in connected appeals and the departmental order in those connected matters had not been challenged further. The impugned Tribunal order, however, took a contrary view in the assessee's own appeal. Such inconsistency required the Tribunal to reconsider the appeal in the light of the orders already passed in the connected matters and the department's stand of accepting them.

Conclusion: The impugned Tribunal order was set aside and the appeal was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained a remand for reconsideration on the ground that the impugned order could not stand consistently with the orders in the connected appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Where materially identical connected matters have been disposed of on a common footing and the departmental position has been accepted in those matters, a contrary order in the same dispute should be set aside and the matter reconsidered consistently with the earlier orders.

---