The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 12, Mumbai v. M.b. Eduljee Cassinath & Sons

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1816 OF 2008ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1817 OF 2008ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1818 OF 2008ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1819 OF 2008ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1820 OF 2008ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1821 OF 2008ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1824 OF 2008ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1825 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 12, MumbaiVersusM.B. Eduljee Cassinath & Sons ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.J.D. Mistry with Mr.N. Thakkar & R. Poojani i/by Mulla & Mulla & C.B. & C. for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 26[th] JUNE, 2009 P.C. : 1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue in all these appeals and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. Registry is directed to register all these appeals. Office objections, if any in all these appeals are over-ruled. By consent of parties, taken up for hearing. 2.It is brought to our notice that by the impugned order, the tribunal has decided appeals arising out of order relevant to assessment year 1995-1996 to 1999-2000. It is also brought to our notice that the tribunal has relied upon the order passed by the tribunal for assessment year 1993-1994, which was adverse to the interest of the revenue. Said order was subject matter of challenge in Income Tax Appeal No.6545/Mum/2002 filed by the Department. That has been disposed of vide order dated 20-10-2006. That order has been followed in the present appeals. The order for assessment year 1993-1994 which is followed in these appeals has become final. 3.It is no doubt true that the Department preferred appeals against the common order for assessment year 1996-1997 to 1999-2000 by preferring 10 appeals, five relating to quantum, whereas five relate to the penalty. Out of 10 appeals, two appeals being Income Tax Appeal no.1107 of 2008 relating to quantum and Income Tax Appeal No.1106 of 2008 relating to penalty is dismissed by this Court for non-appearance of the parties vide order dated 20-10-2008. Almost more than six months have passed, no steps have been taken by the revenue to get the said appeals restored. Under these circumstances, though the impugned order is for assessment year 1995-96 relating to penalty and for assessment year 1996-97 relating to quantum, if the part of the order has become final, in that event there cannot be two contradictory orders in the same litigation. 4.In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law is involved in these appeals. The appeals are thus dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.)(V.C. Daga, J.)