The Commissioner Of Income Tax – V, Pune v. Mahindra Hinoday Industries Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1324 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – V, Pune..Appellant. Versus Mahindra Hinoday Industries Limited..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Mr.Sanjiv M. Shah for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 P.C. : 1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue. There are four questions of law sought to be raised in this appeal. 2.In so far as Question (1) and (3) are concerned, both the questions are on the basis of earlier order of CIT (A) for earlier assessment year i.e. AY 1996-97 and 1997-98. Mr.Gupta has produced a letter dated 29-9-2009 written to him by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 9, Pune wherein it is mentioned that the department has not preferred appeal against the assessment order for AY 1996-97. If these orders were accepted then in that event the present questions of law can hardly be said to be substantial questions of law for having accepted the assessment order for AY 1996-97. No special reasons are disclosed as to why in spite accepting the order for AY 1996-97, the present appeal is filed. Both these questions, therefore, stands rejected. 3.In so far as question (2) is concerned, the same is covered by the Judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Allana Sons Private limited reported in (1995) 216 ITR 690 (Bom). 4.In so far as question (4) is concerned, the question sought to be raised in that the Tribunal did not appreciate that the assessment of the assessee for the earlier assessment year were reopened on this issue. As a matter of fact, reopening has already been quashed and set aside by this Court by order dated 23-6-2009 passed in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1445 of 2009 and Income Tax Appeal No.1446 of 2009 in the case of assessee itself. In these circumstances, the very basis of this question does not take place. 5.For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is without any merit. The same is, thus, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, J.)