COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. HAVELLS (P) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 473/Del/2006 relevant for the asst. yr. 2001 -02.

(2.) Admit.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following substantial question of law is framed for consideration : "Whether, while deciding the appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the law laid down by the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Veekaylal Investment Co. (P) Ltd. (2001) 166 CTR (Bom) 96 : (2001) 249 ITR 597 (Bom) and Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2004) 186 CTR (Bom) 534 : (2003) 262 ITR 330 (Bom) in preference to decisions rendered by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal even though both decisions were cited before the Tribunal We have gone through the operative portion of the impugned order that is para 6. This reads as follows : "6. On considering the submissions of both the parties and carefully going through the decisions (supra) of the Tribunal wherein the decisions (supra) of the Bombay High Court were taken into consideration by the Tribunal, Mumbai Benches in their decisions (supra), in our opinion in order to maintain the consistency in the approach of the Bench, the judicial proprietary demands that we should pay respect and follow the orders of the Co -ordinate Benches wherein on identical facts an identical issue has been decided and hence in this view of the matter and respectfully following the decisions (supra) of the Tribunal, the issue involved in the grounds of appeal of the assessee is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and consequent upon the same the order of the CIT(A) in this regard is set aside and grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are allowed."