Itxa/912/2012 Of The Director Income Tax (It) -1 v. M/S. Standard Chartered Bank

sbw *1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.912 OF 2012 Director of Income Tax (IT) -1 ..Appellant -Versus-M/s. Standard Chartered Bank ..Respondent ........... Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Appellant. Mr. Ajit Shah with Srihari M. Iyer for the Respondent. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A. K. MENON, JJ. DATE :- 18[th] SEPTEMBER, 2014 P.C.: 1]Having heard Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned counsel, appearing for Revenue in support of this Appeal which impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1769/Mum/2003 dated 18[th ]November, 2011, we are of the opinion that both questions and which are termed as substantial questions of law by the Revenue, cannot be entertained. 2]The order pertains to assessment year 1995-96. 3]In relation to the first question and which is termed as substantial question of law, Mr. Tejveer Singh has been fair enough to bring to our 1/5 *2* notice the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. reported in (2003) 262 ITR 55. 4]Upon perusal of these questions, what we find is that the Tribunal followed its own decision in the case of this very Assessee for assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97 rendered in Income Tax Application No.5239/Mum/2004 on 13[th] June, 2011. 5]The judgment in the case of Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. is rendered on 30[th] April, 2003. In view thereof, we do not think that the question can be termed as substantial question of law. In so far as the second question is concerned, the same reads as under:- “Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in holding that the deduction of Rs.35,01,793/- on account of interest tax liability on the ground that after giving effect to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order, the interest tax liability is revised to Rs.4,04,98,753/- from Rs.3,63,96,960/-?” 6]Mr. Tejveer Singh submits that this is certainly a substantial question of law. Mr. Tejveer Singh would submit that the facts which appear to be undisputed are that the Assessee had an Interest Tax Order against it passed on 10[th] March, 1998 by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) –XIV, allowed the Appeal against this order and 2/5 passed a direction in favour of the Assessee. Consequently, the direction as contained in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) led to the Assessing Officer making an order dated 30[th] June, 2000. In other words, he made a consequential order, following the direction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He revised the interest tax liability at Rs.4,04,98,753/-. In the proceedings which arose out of the Assessing Officer's order and impugned before the Commissioner, the Assessee pointed out that a deduction of Rs.3, 69,96,960/- has already been granted towards interest tax payable. The Assessing Officer, therefore, be directed to allow further deduction of Rs.35,01,793/-. This is what precisely the Commissioner did on 23[rd] December, 2002 in the present case. When the matter was carried by the Revenue, the ground No.7 has been noted by the Tribunal at para 13 of the impugned order. We are not in agreement with Mr. Tejveer Singh because the Revenue did not in any manner assail the legality of the exercise and what the Revenue projected was a grievance that the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer could not have been made. The Commissioner himself while making the earlier order should have restored the questions to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner decided the question himself and directed the Assessing Officer to pass the consequential order. It is this consequential order and the manner in which the same was made that was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal. The original order of the Commissioner, the merits of the consequential order of the Assessing Officer dated 30[th] June, 2000 are all not questioned by the Revenue. The consequential order was questioned by the Assessee since it did not give effect to the earlier order of the First Appellate Authority, namely, the Commissioner in its entirety. Such being the nature of the grievance, we do not find that the Tribunal's order and for the reasons assigned in para 15 can be said to be raising any substantial question of law. The Tribunal in para 15 of the order under challenge held as under:- “15. We find the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has given a finding that pursuant to learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s order in the interest tax assessment for assessment year 1995-96 the interest tax liability in the case of the assessee has been determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.4,04,98,753/-. Since the Assessing Officer has already allowed deduction of Rs.3,69,96,960/-, therefore, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in our opinion, was justifed in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the balance amount of Rs.35,01,793/-. The ground raised by the Revenue is therefore dismissed.” 7]On careful perusal of the reasoning, we are of the opinion that the controversy was essentially factual. In the given facts and circumstances, neither the Commissioner nor the Tribunal has decided anything which has an impact on any proceedings which the Revenue may initiate in the case of the present Assessee or any other Assessee. There is no legal issue or question to be answered. In such circumstances, this Appeal cannot be entertained as it does not raise any substantial question of law. It is dismissed. No costs. (A. K. MENON, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) wadhwa