The High Court in  19 ITR-OL 707 (Cal) held that the rule of consistency requires to be interpreted on facts bearing in mind the legal principle that each assessment year is an individual unit. In this case the Tribunal who having followed their earlier adverse order in assessee’s case citing rule of consistency refused to yield to Misc application seeking relief on the basis of a favourable third party Supreme Court order passed subsequent to earlier adverse order of ITAT in assessee’s case.
The High Court held Tribunal was required to examine the facts of the case qua the SC decision especially since the same got pronounced after the order was passed by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in earlier year. That according to it meant an error committed by the tribunal which required rectification surely.
One has to keep evaluating his case facts with facts in other pronouncements by the jurisdictional courts and tribunal as well as those delivered by the Supreme Court and move applications for rectification