Dated :5 November, 2014 v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works Reported In (2009) 318 Itr 116 (Bom

k IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1025 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax-2...Appellant.V/s.M/s. Navdeep Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr. Aasifa Khan and Mr. Satish R. Mode for the Respondent. CORAM:S.C. DHARMADHIKARI ANDA.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED :5 NOVEMBER, 2014. P.C.: 1The order dated 20[th] March, 2012 in Income Tax Appeal No.3755/MUM/2011 is impugned in this Appeal. The Assessment Year is 2007-2008. The questions and termed as substantial questions of law formulated by the Revenue in the Appeal paper book at page 3 are considered to be covered by a authoritative pronouncement namely, a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works reported in (2009) 318 ITR 116 (Bom). 2We do not understand the basis for filing such Appeals inasmuch invariably when such Appeals are called out, it is routinely katkam k conceded that they cannot raise any substantial question of law so long as a Division Bench judgment of this Court holds the field. That the Revenue is not satisfied with this judgment and has approached the higher Court will not enable us to ignore the binding judgment and particularly when it is not pointed out that the same is per incuriam. In such circumstances, while warning the Revenue that hereafter such Appeals when visited with these orders would be dismissed with heavy costs, we proceed to dismiss this Appeal. No costs. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)