The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji v. Velinkar Brothers

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2017 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI., Versus ... Appellant VELINKAR BROTHERS., ... Respondent Ms. Amira Abdul Razaq,Advocate for the appellant. -Coram:SHANTANU S. KEMKAR &PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.-Date:29th January 2018 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the question ofadmission. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,1961 has been filed against the order dated 22nd November 2016passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji in ITRNo.131/PAN/2016. 3. We find that the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of theRevenue in which the challenge was to the action of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the additionon account of under-pricing of sales to its sister concern, whichis entitled to exemption under Section 10B of the Income TaxAct, by observing thus:- "Para 4: At the time of hearing, it was fairly agreed by both thesides that in respect of Revenue's appeal, which is on merits, theissue was squarely covered by the decision of the CoordinateBench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for theAssessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No.18/PNJ/2014 andC.O.No.13/PNJ/2014, dated 30.05.2014 wherein the CoordinateBench of this Tribunal has held that no under-invoicing orunder-pricing has been done by the assessee of its sales made tosister concern. In these circumstances, respectively followingthe decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal inassessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2009-09 (supra),the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) onthis issue stands confirmed. It is also noticed that theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also followedjudicial discipline in following the decision of the CoordinateBench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for theAssessment Year 2008-09, to delete the addition. In thesecircumstances, we find no reason to interfere in the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In the result, appeal ofthe Revenue stands dismissed. Para 5: At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the Authorized Representative of the assessee that as the issue onmerits has been decided in favour of the assessee, he does notwish to press the Cross Objection in respect of reopening ofassessment. Consequently, the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn". 4. In view of the aforesaid finding, it is clear that the issue,which was raised by the Appellant-Revenue before the Tribunalin the appeal was already covered by a decision of theCoordinate Bench of the Tribunal. It is not the case of theappellant-Revenue that the said order referred to in the impugnedorder passed by the Coordinate Bench has been challenged inappeal before this Court and that the appeal has been admitted. 5. In the circumstances, we find that no infirmity in the orderpassed by the Tribunal. On the other hand, what we find is thatthe questions, which are directly raised in this appeal, wereconsidered and the appeal filed by the Revenue before this Courtwas not admitted on these questions raised and the said TaxAppeal No.55/2015 was admitted by this Court on a differentquestion but not on the question raised in this appeal. 6. In the circumstances, we do not find any ground to allowthis appeal and take different view than the view taken by theDivision Bench in the order dated 21st August, 2015 in TaxAppeal No.55/2015 which though, has been admitted but not onthe question of law raised in this appeal but on different questionof law. 7. As a result, the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.mukund SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.