Thirani Chemicals Ltd. vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2006
In Sub-Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor , State of Tripura v. Tripura Bar Association and Ors. , Govt. of A.P. v. A.P. Jaiswal 2001(1) SCC 748 and State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Abdul Majid and Ors. 2002 (Suppl-1) JT 151, the Apex Court has reiterated the principle that a co-ordinate Bench cannot disagree with another Bench and that the only course open to the dissenting Bench is to make a reference to a larger Bench. There is no quarrel with that proposition which is recognised by the Page 0808 courts as an essential feature of judicial discipline that must be maintained by the Courts and the Tribunals alike. There is no gainsaying that in an hierarchical system of administration of justice considerations of judicial discipline must always take primacy for otherwise anamolous situations will arise resulting in uncertainty regarding the law apart from causing avoidable confusion. Two aspects all the same need be kept in view while applying the above principle. The first is that the principle has no application where the fact situations with which two courts of coordinate jurisdiction are dealing, are different. It is only the statement of law contained in a pronouncement that would bind a court of coordinate jurisdiction. If the facts requisite for application of any such principle are absent or materially different, the result in two seemingly identical situations may as well be different. The second and perhaps more important aspect is that in cases arising under the Income Tax Act, each assessment year is a separate unit by itself. The principles of res judicata have no application to assessments made under the Act. The law is to that extent well settled by a catena of decisions rendered by the Courts, reference to some out of which alone should suffice.