Income Tax Appeal v. J.v.salunke,Pa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1321 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax – 2}AppellantversusTrent Ltd.}Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr. Atul Jasani for the Respondent. CORAM :-S.C.DHARMADHIKARI &A.A.SAYED, JJ.DATED :-NOVEMBER 19, 2014 P.C. :- Having heard both sides and finding that the Revenue has conceded that all the questions in this Appeal and termed as substantial questions of law stand answered against it and in favour of the Assessee by authoritative pronouncement of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Narendra D. Desai reported in (2008) 214 CTR (Bom.) and The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Trent Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No. 3175 of 2009 on 6[th] September, 2010, we do not see how these questions raise substantial questions of law. It is unfortunate that having conceded the point and assured this Court on 6[th] September, 2010, the Tribunal's order following the Judgments of this Court and passed on 13[th] April, 2012 is now impugned. The same questions are raised as substantial questions of law in this Appeal, which is filed on 28[th] September, 2012. 2)We strongly deprecate this practice of the Revenue and it should act as a Model or an ideal litigant by not taking chances in this manner. It is expected that it must challenge the orders passed by this Court and adverse to the interest of the Revenue by approaching higher Court. Once it has not approached the higher Court and accepted the Judgments of this Court, then, filing Appeals in subsequent matters and on the same questions and issues is nothing but wasting this Court's precious judicial time as well. In such circumstances, this Appeal is dismissed. 3)We would have imposed costs and quantified at Rs.1,00,000/-, but, for the request made by Mr. Suresh Kumar that hereinafter he would personally check, before filing any Appeal, as to whether the points or questions stated to be substantial questions of law have been covered in Judgments of this Court, hence, we refrain from doing that. If they are covered, we would expect him and other Advocates appearing for the Revenue to advise the Revenue not to file further Appeals but approach the higher Court against the adverse Judgments. If we find that despite this the Revenue persists in filing the Appeals raising questions of law already answered by this Court pertaining to same Assessee year after year, we would impose minimal costs of Rs.1,00,000/- and in each of such Appeals. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)