Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1517 (MAD)

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M. Chellappan

2004-11-18

N.DHINAKAR, N.KANNADASAN

body2004
Judgment :- N.Kannadasan, J. The above Tax Case Appeal is filed challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 16.9.2003 in I.T.A.Nos.605 to 612/Mds/2003. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellate Tribunal has erroneously allowed the appeal by taking a decision in favour of the assessee by wrongly applying the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd. (88 ITR 192) when conflicting decisions are existing. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the conflicting decisions in the case on hand are rendered only by the Tribunals and not by the High Court and accordingly, he would contend that the application of the judgment of the Supreme Court is not correct in law. 3. We have considered the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court cited supra discloses that when there are conflicting decisions, a decision in favour of the assessee alone should be applied while deciding the issue. The Apex Court has not made a distinction about the judgments rendered by the Tribunals as well as by the High Courts with regard to the applicability of the decision. Hence, the appellate Tribunal has rightly followed the judgment of the Supreme Court and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. In fact, this Court has already taken a similar view in T.C.Nos.707 to 709 of 2004. 4. Apart from the above aspects, a Division Bench of this Court, in its decision rendered in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. K.MANICKAM, [(2004) 187 CTR (Mad.)], has already considered the scope of Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein it is held that unless there is a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appellant cannot maintain an appeal under the said provision of the Act. In the case on hand, we do not see any substantial question of law is involved. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal by considering the earlier decisions of the Tribunals and based on the facts available on record. Hence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the appellate Tribunal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tax Case Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.