Section 255(3) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section 255(3), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Agrawal Warehousing and Leasing Ltd v CIT
High CourtHelps taxpayer
The Commissioner (Appeals) refused to follow a Tribunal decision in my favour because he thought it was wrong. Can he do that?
No. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that orders of the Tribunal bind all the Revenue authorities working within its jurisdiction, and the Commissioner (Appeals) committed both judicial impropriety and an error of law in declining to follow a Tribunal decision he thought incorrect. His course was to follow it and leave the Department to appeal. The Tribunal was equally wrong to overrule its own earlier decision, given by the same Bench; it should have asked the President to constitute a larger Bench under section 255(3). The questions were answered for the assessee and the matter went back to the Tribunal.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.