Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The first issue at once gives rise to the question of precedent or judicial comity. How for the facts before the Tribunal in H. C. Shahs case (supra) are the same as those before us here, whether there are any facts different from those facts or in addition to those facts ? In that case also the facts were materially the same as those in each individual case here looked at separately and in isolation. There was a gift to a certain group of three individuals and that group was a beneficiary in Manilal Trust and that is the trust in which some of the present assessee groups are beneficiaries. As stated above that trust is doing construction business. The terms of the gift were the same as in the present case giving discretion to the donees by majority to divide the gifted property and the accumulation of any accretion thereto. The Tribunal has applied the second test laid down by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Harivadan (supra) i.e. "a conglomeration of individuals who happened to have come together but carry on some activity with a view to earn income or profits or gains". According to the Tribunal, since the donees had not come together on their own volition but happened to have come together by reason of the gift, they were a BOI. Looked at in isolation the facts of each appeal here are similar to those in the above case of H. C. Shah. However, when all the appeals were heard together, we have found certain important facts which make a material difference. In order to bring out that difference the following facts are mentioned.

"The general rule is that a Court is bound by the decisions of all Courts higher than itself. A High Court Judge cannot question a decision of the Court of Appeal, nor can the Court of Appeal refuse to follow judgments of the House of Lords. A corollary of the rule is that Courts are bound only by decisions of higher Courts and not by those of lower or equal rank. A High Court Judge is not bound by a previous High Court decision, though he will normally follow it on the principle of judicial comity, in order to avoid conflicts of authority and to secure certainty and uniformity in the administration of justice."

10. It is clear from the above quotation that in deciding these appeals we are not bound by the earlier decision of the Tribunal and we may pass a similar order only as a matter of judicial comity. The above distinguishing facts enable and require us to take a different view. The learned counsel for the assessee has pointed out from the revisional order of the Commissioner from which the Tribunal heard the earlier appeal that this was a part of the design to fragment the income and submitted that this consideration was before the Tribunal. That however, is not correct because the Commissioner has merely relied on the argument that a petty sum of Rs. 1,000 had produced an income of Rs. 2,460. The above facts that the members of the said group, the trustees of the Manilal Trust (Chinubhai Trust) and the donors were common were not before the Tribunal at that time.