The Commissioner Of Income Tax-10, … v. M/S. E.a. Infrastructure Operations …

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1493 OF 2012WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1494 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-10, … AppellantVs.M/s. E.A. Infrastructure Operations … Respondent … Respondent ..... Mr. Tejveer Singh, for the Appellant. Ms. Aarti Sathe a/w. Mr. Kalpesh Turalkar, for the Respondent. …. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND S.C. GUPTE, JJ. PC : DATE : 03 DECEMBER 2014 .Having heard Mr. Tejveer Singh, appearing for the Revenue in support of this appeal, which challenges the order dated 28 September 2011 passed in two Income Tax Appeals on the file of the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, we do not find any substantial question of law, which can be said to be arising from the direction of the Tribunal. That direction issued in para 6.1 is to reexamine the record and find out whether a certificate filed by the assessee enables the assessee to claim the benefit of Section 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We have also found out repeatedly that such orders and directions of the Tribunal are assailed in further appeal before us. The appeal cannot be entertained unless it raises a substantial question of law. The question Pg 1 of 2 framed at page 5 of the paper-book is not a question of law. In fact, its wording is misleading. The Tribunal has not directed the A.O. to allow the deduction. In such circumstances, we would caution the Revenue that, hereafter, if such appeals are filed and the questions are worded in the manner noted by us, we would be constrained to dismiss the appeal without any adjudication. At least the Revenue should not make any attempt to mislead the Court. Let the Assessing Officer complete the exercise directed by the Revenue within a period of two months from the receipt of the copy of this order. (S.C.GUPTE, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Pg 2 of 2