Dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax - 2 v. M/S. Indusind Bank Ltd.

Bombay HC9 Oct 2014ITXA/1125/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an income tax appeal involving a banking company, the Court dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Court held that a pure factual finding, consistently rendered by the Tribunal for prior years of the same assessee, cannot be treated as perverse or vitiated, nor can it be a substantial question of law merely because the assessee adopted an inconsistent stand for the current year.

What did the court decide?

The appellant's appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.

Commissioner of Income Tax - 2 Vs M/S. Indusind Bank Ltd. — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

itxa1125-12

¶2

sas

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1125 OF 2012

¶6

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai

¶7

..Appellant.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

M/s. Indusind Bank Ltd.

¶10

..Respondent.

¶11

Mr.Charanjeet Chanderpal for the appellant.

¶12

Mr.Sanjiv M.Shah for the respondent.

¶13

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI AND A.K.MENON, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 9TH OCTOBER, 2014

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

The present appeal challenges the order passed by the Tribunal dated 13^th January, 2012 in Income Tax appeal No.3509/ Mum /2006. The assessment year in question is 2003-04.

¶17

The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 10^th April, 2006 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and particularly point No.1 raised therein. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and that is how the

¶18

1/4

¶19

itxa1125-12

¶20

revenue has come in further appeal before us.

¶21

Mr.Chandrapal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that this appeal raises a substantial question of law. The income derived by way of interest from security had accrued and in terms of book accounts maintained by the respondent-assessee, which is a banking company. However, that was not offered to tax on accrual basis but on actual receipt. Mr.Chandrapal submits that in relation to a claim under section 43B(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee urged that interest liability had accrued under the mercantile system of accounting, but on the other hand, it urges for the purpose of this section that interest is not payable. This stand of the assessee was rejected by the Tribunal and while dealing with ground No.5. Therefore, inconsistent and contradictory stand of the assessee should not have be accepted. The system of accounting which has been adopted should have been continuously adopted and accepted by the revenue, then alone, the finding of fact can be returned in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal be admitted.

¶22

Mr.Shah, learn`ed counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent bank / assessee submits that the revenue have been persistently raising this issue and pertaining to the same assessee.

¶23

2/4

¶24

itxa1125-12

¶25

That has been raised for the assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2004-05 and the Tribunal has been consistently following its view and in the case of the very assessee and this view has been taken for prior assessment years. In relation to assessment year 2000-01, the Tribunal passed a detailed order in favour of the assessee in Income Tax appeal No.931/M/04. That order of the Tribunal was challenged by the revenue by filing Income Tax appeal No.1621 of 2011. That has been dismissed by this Court on 12^th February, 2013 and relying upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) V/s. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait, BSC in Income Tax Appeal No.1738 of 2011 decided on 5^th February, 2013. Thereafter, for the assessment year 2001-02 as well this Court dismissed Income Tax Appeal No.2641 of 2011 on 16^th April, 2014. The Tribunal has been taking a consistent view on the factual finding and there was nothing contrary pointed out by the revenue. That is how this Court has been dismissing the appeals of the revenue.

¶26

In the present case as well, we find that the Tribunal had applied and followed its order in the case of this very assessee for prior assessment year 2000-01. That is how the conclusion in para No.6 of the Tribunal is reached. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the only question of law projected as substantial one, cannot be

¶27

3/4

¶28

itxa1125-12

¶29

entertained. A pure factual finding cannot be re-appreciated and reapprised. That finding has been consistently rendered by the Tribunal and for prior assessment years in the case of the very assessee. If the Tribunal follows and applies it on the same facts for a subsequent assessment year, that exercise undertaken by the Tribunal cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law, apparent on the face of record. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.

¶30

(A.K.MENON, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶31

4/4

Commissioner of Income Tax - 2 v. M/S. Indusind Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Income Tax - 2 v. M/S. Indusind Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income TAX-8, Vs M/S. Lexi Pen (India) Pvt.Ltd.

Commissioner of Income TAX-5 Vs the Standard Batteries Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income TAX-9. Vs M/S. Paramount Apparels Pvt.Ltd.

The C.I.T.Kolhapur. Vs Vasantdada Shetkari S.S.K.Ltd.

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -23 (2) Vs Anand Automobiles

Commissioner of Income Tax- 2, Vs M/S. Kalimati Investment Co.Ltd.