The division bench dismissed the Income Tax Appeal raised by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The court held that since the Revenue had accepted orders for earlier assessment years without restoring non-removed appeal objects, the current appeal did not raise a substantial question of law.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1740-14-itxa=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1740 OF 2014
The Commissioner of Income Tax-V ..Appellant
Versus
Kala Gensets Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent
Mr. Tejveer Singh for the appellant None for the Respondent.
CORAM: M. S. SANKLECHA & A. K. MENON, JJ.
DATE : 20th MARCH, 2017
P.C.
our consideration :-
“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's claim of Rs.1,31,38,957/- claimed as deduction u/s 80IB of the I.T. Act, 1961, when the assessee is not involved in manufacturing or producing activity but is only
1 of 4
Uday S. Jagtap
1740-14-itxa=.doc
carrying out the activity of assembling at its Silvassa Unit.
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in restricting the disallowance made u/s 80IB(10) r.w.s. 80IA(13) to 15% of the disallowance of CIT(A) in disregard to the fact of shifting of profit brought out by the Assessing Officer scientifically?”
3. Regarding question no.(i):-
(a) The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal before it by following the order of its co-ordinate bench in respect of Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 relating to the same respondent assessee. The impugned order further records that no distinction in fact has been pointed out which would warrant the Tribunal to take a different view in the subject assessment year than that taken in the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09.
(b) Mr. Tejveer Singh, the learned Counsel for the Revenue very fairly states that no appeal from the order passed by the Tribunal for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 is pending before this Court. Mr. Tejveer Singh, further states that although appeals were filed from the order of the Tribunal for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the same were dismissed for non-removal of office objection as far back
2 of 4
Uday S. Jagtap
1740-14-itxa=.doc
as in 2014. The Revenue has taken no steps till date to restore those appeals.
(c) In the above view, as the Revenue has accepted the orders of the Tribunal in the earlier Assessment Years i.e. Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 by not taking any steps to restore the same for over a period of 3 years, it must necessarily follow that the Revenue has accepted the order of the Tribunal for the earlier two years i.e. Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 in respect of the issue raised herein.
(d) In the above view, question (i) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.
4. Regarding question no.(ii) :-
(a) We note that the impugned order of the Tribunal has dismissed the Revenue's appeal by following its order rendered for Assessment Year 2007-08 in respect of the same respondent assessee. The impugned order further records that the Revenue has not shown any distinguishing features in the subject assessment year which would warrant the Tribunal to take a view different from that taken in the earlier assessment years.
3 of 4
Uday S. Jagtap
1740-14-itxa=.doc
states that the Revenue had preferred appeals from the order of the Tribunal for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09, being Income Tax Appeal No.(L) No. 1457 of 2014 and Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 1458 of 2014. However, the same were rejected for non-removal of office objection as far back as in 2014. The very fact that the Revenue has not taken any steps to restore the same for all these years is an indication of the fact that the impugned orders of the Tribunal for Assessment Years 2007-08 relating to issue arising herein has been accepted by the Revenue.
(c) In the above view, in the absence of anything on record being pointed out to indicate the reason why the present appeal should be entertained even if the order from the earlier assessment years has been accepted, we see no occasion to entertain the present appeal.
any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.
(A.K. MENON, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
4 of 4
Uday S. Jagtap
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax - V
Kala Gensets Pvt. Ltd.
M. S. Sanklecha
A. K. Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
