The Principal Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Panaji v. Handsel Goa Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOATAX APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2017. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, PANAJI., ... Appellant. Versus HANDSEL GOA PVT. LTD., ... Respondent. Ms. S. Linhares, Standing Counsel for the appellant.Mr. N. Pai, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- M. S. SONAK & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.Date:- 4th February 2019. P.C. Heard Ms. S. Linhares, learned Standing counsel for theappellant and Mr. N. Pai, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2.On 4.12.2018, we made following order:- “The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondenthas invited our attention to the observations made inparagraph 12 of the order passed by the Income TaxAppellant Tribunal, Panaji, which reads thus :“12. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that theissues in this appeal are identical to the facts in thecase of M/s. Parabola Land Management Pvt. Ltd.,M/s. Parabola Land & Holding Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Goa Organics Pvt. Ltd. In ITA Nos.183/PNJ/2015,184/PNJ/2015 and 185/PNJ/2015 respectively, all dt.6.8.2015. It was the submission that the assessmentyear involved is 2010-11. The returned income wasRs.12,73,20,517/- and the assessed income was alsoRs.12,73,20,517/-. It was the submission that thefindings in the case of M/s. Parabola LandManagement Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Parabola Land &Holding Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Goa Organics Pvt. Ltd. referred to supra would apply to this case also." referred to supra would apply to this case also." 2. It is pointed out that M/s. Parabola LandManagement Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Parabola Land &Holding Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Goa Organics Pvt. Ltd.are sister concerns of M/s. Handsel Goa Pvt. Ltd.which is impleaded as the Respondent in this matter.It has further been pointed out that the order passedby the Assessing Officer is common in respect of allthe four companies, including the sister concernsnamed as above. It has been pointed to theAppellate Authority during the course of theargument that in identical facts and circumstancesthe assessment made in respect of the sisterconcerns named above has been dealt with by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the CITAppeals has directed deletion of the amount ofpenalty. The same decision referable to the abovereferred sister concerns shall apply to the case ofthe Respondent. The aforesaid submission has beenaccepted by the Appellate Authority in the instantmatter and the said decision dated 17 August 2015is a matter of challenge in the instant Appeal. Thelearned Counsel appearing the Respondent statesthat since the decision of the Appellate Authority incase of sister concerns has attained finality, theinstant appeal challenging the decision dated 17August 2015 in respect of the Respondentconcerned shall not be entertained.Management Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Parabola Land &Holding Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Goa Organics Pvt. Ltd.are sister concerns of M/s. Handsel Goa Pvt. Ltd.which is impleaded as the Respondent in this matter.It has further been pointed out that the order passedby the Assessing Officer is common in respect of allthe four companies, including the sister concernsnamed as above. It has been pointed to theAppellate Authority during the course of theargument that in identical facts and circumstancesthe assessment made in respect of the sisterconcerns named above has been dealt with by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the CITAppeals has directed deletion of the amount ofpenalty. The same decision referable to the abovereferred sister concerns shall apply to the case ofthe Respondent. The aforesaid submission has beenaccepted by the Appellate Authority in the instantmatter and the said decision dated 17 August 2015is a matter of challenge in the instant Appeal. Thelearned Counsel appearing the Respondent statesthat since the decision of the Appellate Authority incase of sister concerns has attained finality, theinstant appeal challenging the decision dated 17August 2015 in respect of the Respondentconcerned shall not be entertained.3. It does appear prima facie that the decision asregards the sister concerns rendered by the CITAppeals has attained finality which order prima facieshall apply in case of the Respondent as well.regards the sister concerns rendered by the CITAppeals has attained finality which order prima facieshall apply in case of the Respondent as well.4. The learned Standing Counsel seeks time for takinginstructions in the matter, S.O. to 9 January 2019.”instructions in the matter, S.O. to 9 January 2019.” 3.Today, Ms. Linhares, learned Standing Counsel for theappellant accepts that no appeals have been instituted in casesrelated to M/s Parabola Land Management Pvt. Ltd., Parabola Land& Holding Pvt. Ltd and M/s Goa Organics Pvt. Ltd. in ITA AppealNos.183/PNJ/2015, 184/PNJ/2015 and 185/PNJ/2015. She submits that though there is no common judgment and order by which theaforesaid cases are present case came to be disposed of, it doesappears that issues raised are common. Even according to us,issues raised are virtually identical. 3.Today, Ms. Linhares, learned Standing Counsel for theappellant accepts that no appeals have been instituted in casesrelated to M/s Parabola Land Management Pvt. Ltd., Parabola Land& Holding Pvt. Ltd and M/s Goa Organics Pvt. Ltd. in ITA AppealNos.183/PNJ/2015, 184/PNJ/2015 and 185/PNJ/2015. She submits that though there is no common judgment and order by which theaforesaid cases are present case came to be disposed of, it doesappears that issues raised are common. Even according to us,issues raised are virtually identical. 4.Mr. Pai, points out that aforesaid companies/agencies are in infact sister concern of the present respondent-M/s Handsel Goa Pvt.Ltd. Since, no appeals have been instituted by the appellant inconnection and identical matters concerning the sister concern ofthe respondent, we do not think that there is any justificationinstituting this appeal. 5.Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, there shall be no order asto costs. PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J M. S. SONAK, J. VN*