| COURT: | Bombay High Court |
| CORAM: | G. S. Kulkarni J, M. S. Sanklecha J |
| SECTION(S): | 260A |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | consistency principle |
| COUNSEL: | Ex-parte |
| DATE: | February 4, 2015 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | February 12, 2015 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2006-07 |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| Uniformity in treatment is the basis premise of rule of law. The Dept cannot arbitrarily pick and choose which orders of the ITAT should be challenged in the High Court. If ITAT has followed an order which is not challenged by the Dept then an affidavit must be filed explaining the distinguishing features which warrants the different view | |
When the Revenue challenges the order of the Tribunal which in turn relies upon another decision rendered by it on the same issue, then in cases where the Revenue has accepted the order by not preferring any Appeal against the earlier order, the Revenue should not challenge the subsequent order on the same issue. In case an appeal is preferred from the subsequent order, then the Memo of appeal must indicate the reasons as to why an appeal is being preferred in later case when no appeal was preferred from the earlier order of the Tribunal which has merely been followed in the later case. In any case, the Officer concerned must atleast file an Affidavit before the matter comes up for admission, pointing out distinguishing features in the present case from the earlier case, warranting a different view in case the appeal is being pressed
Recent Comments