TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 864
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion that falls for consideration is whether an Assessing Officer is entitled to invoke Section 154 to correct an assessment order which gives effect to the orders of the appellate authorities based on his opinion that the orders of the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal are erroneous and contrary to law, including a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court. We have answered the question in the negative. (B) The appellant seeks to raise the question as follows : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the AO rectifying the order under section 154 in view of the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court parti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Supreme Court in Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 172 and CIT v. V.D. Swami & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 325 (SC). (B) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 19th March, 1997 rightly held that the Assessing Officer was bound by the decision of the Tribunal, till it was held to be incorrect in appropriate proceedings. He rightly held that the Assessing Officer was not entitled to ignore the orders of the Tribunal and, therefore, directed the Assessing Officer to implement the directions of the Tribunal. (C) The Assessing Officer, accordingly, by an order dated 11th March, 1988 gave effect to the order of the Tribunal and revised the earlier order dated 27th October, 1992. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ingly directed to grant depreciation on the vessel by including the custom duty payable while determining the actual cost even though the ITAT was aware that such custom duty was not payable by a subsequent notification by the Govt. of India in 1987. As the decision of the Supreme Court is correct interpretation of law any action taken or directed contrary to such finding by the Supreme court constitute a mistake apparent from the record and the same is rectifiable u/s 154. In view of this the order dated 11-3-1998 giving effect to the CIT (Appeals)'s order is rectified as under withdrawing depreciation allowed on the custom duty payable." 7. Surprisingly, even the CIT (A) confirmed this action. The Tribunal, however, by the impugned jud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nor the CIT(A) can sit in judgment over the decision of the Tribunal and they cannot correct an order of the Tribunal. In the present case, the Revenue did not challenge the order of the Tribunal. The matter should have ended by the AO implementing the order of the Tribunal. In fact, upon remand, the AO erroneously did not implement the order of the Tribunal. The AO, ultimately, did so only when the CIT(A) by the said order dated 19th March, 1997 directed him to do so, stating that the AO was bound by the judgment of the Tribunal. The Revenue did not challenge this Order of the CIT(A) either. The matter regarding the claim for depreciation stood concluded, as far as the AO, the CIT(A), as well as the Tribunal are concerned. If the Revenue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ider whether a decision of the Supreme Court is a correct interpretation of the law or not. Decisions of higher Courts are bound to be followed, irrespective of the personal views of the lower Courts or authorities. 13. Mr. Dessai relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to in the question as raised in the appeal which is set out earlier. 14. The judgment of the Supreme Court in S.A.L. Narayana Row, CIT v. Model Mills Nagpur Ltd. [1967] 64 ITR 67 does not support the Department's contention. In that case, after the assessment order was made, this Court had, in Khatau Makanji Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 841, held that the levy of tax on the excess dividend was illegal. The respondent, therefore, applied for....