Itxa/1141/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 6 v. M/S. Atcom Technologies Sltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1141 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax 6..Appellant-Versus-M/s. Atcom Technologies Ltd...Respondent ..Respondent ........... Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr. Jitendra Singh for the Respondent. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE :- 27[th] NOVEMBER, 2014 P.C.: This Appeal of the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, dated 16[th] September, 2011 in Income Tax Appeal No.300/Mum/2006. The assessment year is 2002-03. 2]Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that the order passed by the Tribunal raises the substantial questions of law and particularly on the conclusion that Assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of Daman Units without allocation of depreciation of head office assets. 3]It has been fairly stated that similar questions for assessment year 1/3 1999-2000, 2000-2001 were subject matter of an Appeal before this Court and arising from the Tribunal order. That Appeal was dismissed by this Court on 9[th] July, 2009 holding that there was a delay in filing the same and this Court has no power to condone such delay. 4]On the earlier occasion, Mr. Suresh Kumar invited our attention to another Income Tax Appeal being Income Tax Appeal No.2967/Mum/2004 in which an order dated 23[rd] July, 2008 was passed and that has been followed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. We sought information from Mr. Suresh Kumar as to whether against all these orders in relation to the same Assessee and pertaining to the same claim has the Revenue approached the higher Court. We granted him time on two occasions to take instructions. 5]Today, Mr. Suresh Kumar very fairly states that this Court's order refusing to condone the delay has not been challenged before the higher Court. Equally, in some of the cases and pertaining to other Assessee's such orders were challenged in the higher Court or were sought to be reviewed by filing Review Petitions. All this was done after the Parliament stepped in and brought an amendment enabling this Court to condone the delay. Nothing of this kind has been done in this case. As a result of the above discussion and finding that when same facts and same issues were repeatedly raised, the Tribunal applied the rule of consistency and wadhwa followed its earlier view that this Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (A. A. SAYED, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 3/3