TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 753
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... covered by judgment dated 13.11.2009 passed by this Court in the bunch of Trade Tax Revisions led by Trade Tax Revision No. 108 of 2008 (M/s A.R. Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. Hardoi Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, U.P., Lucknow). The judgment of this Court reads as under: "All the revisions have been filed by the assessees under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act 1948 against the different judgment / order passed by U.P. Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow for the assessment years mentioned above. Since the controversy involved in the above mentioned revisions are almost identical along with the facts and circumstances, hence all the revisions are decided by this common order. In all the revisions, during the assessment years under consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s per section 4-BB, the assessees were entitled for set off of the tax already paid on the purchase of raw material i.e. paddy. To this effect, the Commissioner has issued a circular no. 554 dated 22.07.2004. He further submitted that on the basis of the circular and statutory provisions, the assessees have moved necessary applications claiming the benefit under Section 4-BB but in a few cases, the A.O. has rejected the application filed by the assessee. However, in some cases, the A.O. has allowed the claim of the assessee but the same was recalled. Being aggrieved, the assessees have filed the first appeal before the first appellate authority who has allowed the claim of the assessee. Not being satisfied, the department has filed an appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... instant cases, the Single Member who was the part of the Division Bench of the Tribunal has denied the said benefit to the assessees. It may be mentioned that similar matters must receive the similar treatment as per the ratio laid down in the following cases: 1. Diksha Suri v. ITAT 232, ITR 395 Delhi 2. U.O.I. v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd., 186 ITR 722 SC 3. CIT v. L. G. Ramamurthy, 110 ITR 453 Madras The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal must follow the earlier decision as per the ratio laid down in the case of C.I.T. v Travencore, 265 ITR 526 Kerala. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 295 ITR 466 observed that rule of precedent was an important aspect of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt revisions is similar to the Bunch of Revision No. 108 of 2008, where this Court has passed an order dated 13.11.2009. The operative portion of the aforesaid revision, on reproduction, reads as under:- "In the light of the above discussion and by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I set aside all the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and restored the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the issue denovo by keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the above mentioned cases but by providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessees. The Tribunal will be at liberty to admit the fresh evidence, if need be, in the interest of justice." With the consent of the learned counsel for the ....