Co-ordinate Bench precedent on identical facts must be followed; reassessment based on the same fraud report was unsustainable.

A co-ordinate Bench decision on identical facts between the same parties should ordinarily be followed, and a later Tribunal Bench cannot depart from it without any material distinction or additional evidence. The earlier order had already rejected the same fraud report and found no basis to sustain the demand, while the later order relied only on a different assessment year and identified no new factual foundation. In that setting, the reassessment based on the same fraud report could not be sustained merely by ignoring the earlier view, and the impugned order was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to follow its earlier order passed by a co-ordinate Bench on identical facts between the same parties, and whether the reassessment based on the same fraud report was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The earlier order of the Tribunal had already disbelieved the very same fraud report and held that there was no basis for sustaining the demand. The later Tribunal order did not identify any additional material distinct from that common fraud report and rested its conclusion only on the difference in assessment year. In the absence of any distinguishing factual foundation, a co-ordinate Bench was bound to follow the earlier view on the same issue involving the same assessee. The reassessment, therefore, could not be sustained merely by ignoring the earlier decision.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in the negative. The Tribunal was not legally correct in departing from the earlier co-ordinate Bench decision on identical facts, and the impugned order is unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A co-ordinate Bench decision on identical facts between the same parties should ordinarily be followed, and a later Bench cannot disregard it in the absence of any material distinction or additional evidence.

---