TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (10) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) challenging several items of disallowances and additions. The appellate authority gave relief to the assessee by deleting two sums aggregating to Rs. 10,32,245 and the order passed was also given effect to by the Income-tax Officer by a revised assessment order dated March 13, 1979. As a consequence of implementing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Hyderabad, refund of a sum of Rs. 5,29,832 was ordered to be made to the assessee. Thereupon, both the assessee and the Revenue pursued the matter on further appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B', and the Appellate Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. As a consequence of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee became entitled to further relief and the Income-tax Officer was obliged to give effect to the order of the Tribunal. While matters stood thus, the assessee filed two applications before the Income-tax Officer on January 29, 1981, inviting his attention to the orders passed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal and claiming interest under section 214 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e cause of action. So far as the merits of the claims are concerned, learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions in Trustees of H. E. H. Nizam's Religious Endowment Trust[1981] 131 ITR 239 (AP), CIT v. G. B. Transports [1985] 155 ITR 548 (Ker) [FB] and CIT v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. [1984] 146 ITR 452 (Bom) [FB]. So far as the preliminary objections raised by learned counsel for the Revenue are concerned, reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment of this court in Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1980] 124 ITR 518. While replying to the plea of preliminary objection, learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the decisions in K. S. Rashid and Son v. Income-tax Investigation Commission [1954] 25 ITR 167 (SC), Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd.'s case [1980] 124 ITR 518 (Mad) and Seth Paluram Dhanania v. ITO [1960] 39 ITR 429 (MP). After careful consideration of the respective submissions of learned counsel on either side, I am of the view that there is no substance or merit in the preliminary objection raised. In Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd.'s case[1980] 124 ITR 518 (Mad), the Division Bench of this court sustained an objection on behalf of the Revenue to the jurisdiction of this court to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there is no impediment for this court to entertain the writ petition and proceed to decide the same on merits. The decision in J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U. P. [1956-57] 11 FJR 359 ; AIR 1957 All 252 ; [1956] All LJ 898, was also relied upon to say that, when the records and files relating to the petitioner-assessee have already been sent to the first respondent, a writ cannot be issued to the second respondent who is outside the jurisdiction and who has passed the order at this stage. In Seth Paluram Dhanania v. ITO [1960] 39 ITR 429, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court expressed the view that even though original notices were issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle-I, Nagpur, having regard to the subsequent transfer of the cases to the authorities at Calcutta and later to the authorities at New Delhi, the writ petition was held not to be maintainable before the said court. There can be no controversy over the fact that, after the insertion of article 226(2)by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, any High Court may also exercise its powers under article 226(1), if the cause of action wholly or in part arises fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned counsel appearing before me in support of their submissions. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue also contended that the Division Bench which decided the two cases in Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Ltd.'s case [1980] 126 ITR 125 (Mad) and Rayon Traders Pvt. Ltd.'s case [1980] 126 ITR 135 (Mad) did not advert to the provisions contained in section 244 of the Act and that, consequently, the Division Bench judgments relied upon very much for the assessee require reconsideration by a larger Bench. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing on either side judicial propriety requires me to follow and apply an earlier Division Bench judgment of this court which is very much binding on me sitting as a single judge of the same High Court, unless there is any binding decision rendered by a larger Bench of this court or by the Supreme Court, or a contra decision of co-ordinate jurisdiction of this court or the decision concerned suffers from any serious infirmity warranting such a reference for the consideration of a larger Bench. The apex court often administered a note of caution to the courts in this country with reference to the cours....