It is a clear case of showing disrespect to the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, contempt proceedings could have been initiated against the CIT (A) for blatantly disobeying the order of the Tribunal. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Agrawal Warehousing & Leasing Ltd. vs. CIT 257 ITR 235 held that the CIT (A) cannot refuse to follow the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The CIT (A) is a quasi – judicial authority and is subordinate in judicial hierarchy to the Tribunal. The orders passed by the Tribunal are binding on all the revenue authorities functioning under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities
In the light of authoritative pronouncement in National Thermal Power Limited Company V/s. CIT 229 ITR 383 and which was binding on the Tribunal, in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, we do not see how the…
S. 254(1): Unnecessary remand by the ITAT causes prejudice and amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction
The Tribunal should not have refused to consider and decide the issue relating to service charges, more so, when an identical view taken by it earlier has not found favour of this Court. This Court repeatedly reminded the Tribunal of its duty as a last fact finding authority of dealing with all factual and legal issues. The Tribunal failed to take any note of the caution which has been administered by this Court and particularly of not remanding cases unnecessarily and without any proper direction. A blanket remand causes serious prejudice to parties. None benefits by non-adjudication or non-consideration of an issue of fact and law by an Appellate Authority and by wholesale remand of the case back to the original authority. This is a clear failure of duty which has to be performed by the Appellate Authority in law. Once the Appellate Authority fails to perform such duty and is corrected on one occasion by this Court, and in relation to the same assessee, then, the least that was expected from the Tribunal was to follow the order and direction of this Court and abide by it even for this later assessment year. If the same claim and which was dealt with by the Court earlier and for which the note of caution was issued, then, the Tribunal was bound in law to take due note of the same and follow the course for the later assessment years. We are of the view that the refusal of the Tribunal to follow the order of this Court and equally to correct its obvious and apparent mistake is vitiated as above. It is vitiated by a serious error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal has misdirected itself completely and in law in refusing to decide and consider the claim in relation to service charges.