Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Mumbai v. M/S.inor Medical Products Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3317 OF 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai Versus M/s.Inor Medical Products Limited ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Ms.Aarti Vissanji with Mr.S.J. Mehta for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 30[th] March 2010. P.C. : 1.The appeal by the Revenue relates to assessment year 2003-2004 and raises the following question of law : “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of service charges of Rs.47,43,080/- relying on the ratio of decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Dalmia Cements (254 ITR 377) without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of proving the extent of services rendered by BBPCL and the reasonableness of payment towards it ? 2.The Tribunal in para 8 of its decision relied upon its order in the case of the assessee for assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, while placing reliance on para 3.7 of the memo of Appeal, stated that the only reason why the order of the Tribunal has been questioned in this case is that whereas for the earlier years the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had deleted the dis-allowance, which order was confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in the present case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer. That can hardly be a ground for the Revenue to institute an Appeal, when an identical issue in the earlier assessment years stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal, which has been accepted by the Revenue and which has attained finality. No distinguishing features have been brought to the notice of the Court during the course of the submissions in the present case. 3.In these circumstances, this appeal cannot be entertained since it does not raise any substantial question of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)