The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Itxa.195.12.14.Sxw

kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.195 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax...Appellant-Versus-M/s Prakruti Constructions Pvt.Ltd....Respondent ........... Mr.Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant.Mr.Nishant Thakker with Ms.Megha Bansal i/by PDS Legal, for the Respondent. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE :- 03[rd] July, 2014 P.C.: 1Heard both sides. Perused the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and impugned in this Appeal by the Revenue.2On some what identical questions and pertaining to the same Assessee the Income Tax Appeal No.196/2012 was filed by the Revenue in this Court. After hearing both sides a Division Bench comprising of one of us decided that Appeal on 23.04.2014. The Tribunal's view that the matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Brahma Associates reported in (2011) 333 ITR 289 (Bom.)is, therefore, in consonance with the facts and circumstances placed on record. We cannot accede to the submissions of Mr.Suresh Kumar that for the subsequent years the ratio in Brahma Associates (supra) would not apply. Mr.Suresh Kumar submits that similar issue is subject matter of several Appeals and which have been admitted by this Court.3However, we find that the proceedings are of reassessment of the income. In the reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer sought to deviate from the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Brahma Associates v/s Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2009) (119) ITR255and which has been upheld by this Court. The Tribunal found that there was no distinguishing feature brought on record and rather a binding principle could not have been ignored. The factual position in the Assessment Year 2004-2005 which was subject matter of the Income Tax Appeal No.196/2012 and the Assessment Year 2007-2008 are stated to be identical. Once the Revenue has conceded to this position and which consent is recorded in paragraph 31 and further finding that no material is brought on record to distinguish the matter and pertaining to the Assessment Year 2007-2008 from the earlier Assessment Year that the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's Appeal. The order passed on 20.07.2011, therefore, does not call for any interference. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of record. The Appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. No costs. (B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)