Court held that the Tribunal had a duty to consider the orders and upon consideration, three options were available to the Tribunal, (a) to apply the decisions and decide the case in favour of the assessee, (b) to distinguish the decision in the assessee’s earlier case on factual grounds and set out reasons as to how they did not apply to the assessment year under consideration and distinguishable, or (c) to consider the findings given by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and assign reasons why the decisions did not lay down the correct legal principle or that there was an error of law committed by the Co-ordinate Bench prompting the Tribunal to take a different decision and after abiding by the principles of judicial discipline, the Tribunal ought to have put the matter up for reference to a larger Bench. The Tribunal had not followed any one of these three options. Matter remanded. ( AY.2006-07 to 2012-13)