Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In this Misc. petition grievance raised by the Revenue is that this Tribunal ;had remitted the issue relating to claim for deduction under sec. 80HHC on DEPB benefits back to the file of AO, for fresh consideration in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Special Bench in the case of Topman Exports v. ITO (318 ITR(AT)87). According to the ld. DR, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has in the case of CIT vs. Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals (328 ITR 451) reversed the decision of the Special Bench in Topman Exports (supra) and hence there is a mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal in this regard.

2. Ld.AR submitted that the guidelines mentioned in Special Bench order in Topman Export's case no more existed, since it was overturned by Hon. Bombay High Court in Kalpataru Colours & Chemical's case (supra). Therefore, according to him, the AO if he followed the guidelines given in Topman Export's case of Special Bench, will be doing an act of judicial indiscipline, since he will have to go by a decision which was overturned by a higher authority.

3. As against above the ld. AR submitted that there was no error apparent in the order of the Tribunal supra.

"4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders. Question raised in this appeal is on treatment of DEPB for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. How the DEPB benefits have to be considered, whether at the time of receipt or at the time of accrual or at the time of credit or on sale, have all been considered by the Special Bench in the case of Topman Exports (supra). Neither AO nor the ld. CIT9A0 had the benefit of the wisdom of the Special Bench at the time of dealing with this issue. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the AO and ld. CIT(A) in this regard and remit the issue back to the file of the AO for deciding it based on the guidelines laid down by the Special Bench in the case of Topman Exports (supra)"

6. As on the date when this Tribunal passed order, no doubt it was justified in remitting the matter and directing the AO to follow the guidelines in Topman Export's case (supra). But it remains an uncontroverted fact that the said decision has been overruled by the Hon. Bombay High Court in Kalpataru Colours & Chemical's case (supra). In our opinion there is an error in the order of the Tribunal, in that power of AO to consider the issue was limited to the guidelines laid down by the Special Bench in Topman Export's case, whereas it should have been principles evolving out of Topman Export's case. It is the manifest duty of a judicial or quasi judicial body to ensure that its' orders are clear and should subserve the ultimate object of rendering justice and if the directions given could lead to a result whereby judicial discipline of the hierarchy of Courts would get negated, then such directions will be susceptible to a rectificatory proceedings, the mistake in such directions being glaring and apparent. Rectification of such a mistake cannot be refused just for a reason that one of the parties to the dispute has moved in further appeal.