Orders of appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by subordinate authorities - Contemptible Order of CIT(A) - ITAT
HERE is yet another case of gross judicial disobedience.
The ITAT remanded a case to the CIT(A). The Learned CIT was not impressed. In the order he observed,
My predecessor had taken a particular view in the matter. In the absence of any additional evidence/ information before me, I cannot sit in judgement over the view taken by my predecessor. In any case, in my opinion, the view taken by my predecessor was correct.
The Learned CIT preferred to follow the order of his colleague predecessor, which was set aside by the Tribunal and therefore did not exist. The case again went to the Tribunal. The Tribunal was not amused and observed in a recent case decided by the Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT.
The earlier order of the predecessor of the learned CIT (Appeals) does not exist in the eyes of law. It could not be taken into consideration for any purpose and even the same is not an order in the eyes of law.
The learned CIT (Appeals) instead of following the order of the Tribunal and without considering the evidences and material on record and without giving his independent opinion on the matter in issue has preferred to follow the order of his predecessor. Even the learned CIT (Appeals) has quoted some portion of the order of his predecessor in the impugned order.
The learned CIT (Appeals) also blatantly observed in the impugned order that he cannot sit in judgment over the view taken by his predecessor. The findings of the learned CIT (Appeals) noted above, clearly show that the learned CIT (Appeals) instead of deciding the appeal on merits and in compliance with the order of the Tribunal preferred to follow the view and order passed by his predecessor. The learned CIT (Appeals) has even gone to the extent of noting in the impugned order that the view taken by his predecessor was correct.
Thus it is clear that the learned CIT (Appeals) has shown disobedience to the order of the Tribunal. It is a clear case of showing disrespect to the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, contempt proceedings could have been initiated against the learned CIT (Appeals) for blatantly disobeying the order of the Tribunal.
The learned CIT (Appeals) failed to take note of the fact that he is quasi-judicial authority under the Income Tax Act and is subordinate in judicial hierarchy to the Tribunal. The orders passed by the Tribunal are binding on all the revenue authorities functioning under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities.
The Tribunal did not propose to initiate contempt proceedings but warned the CIT to be careful in future in following the order of the Tribunal in accordance with law and should not show any defiance to the order of the Tribunal.
Twist in the Tale: It was the Revenue which appealed to the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) pleading that his order was illegal.