9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation on the the part of the Advocate Mr. Pinto stems from not understanding our view or it is a made up indignation so as to accuse of us of pressurizing him to do an activity not expected of an Advocate. It appears to be in the second category as the SMS appears to give a completely different twist to the facts as stated to him by Associate. Our endeavor is only to ensure that the law is settled for the tax payers within the State of Maharashtra till the time the Apex Court takes a final view on the issue arising before us. Failing this, the Officers of the Revenue may arbitrarily decide which view of this Court it should follow and the justification would be (even in the absence of any distinguishing facts) the contradictory views of this Court. We have time and again reiterated that equality of treatment at the hands of law is an essential attribute of the Rule of Law, about which we as a State are justifiably proud..In the above view, for the aforesaid reasons we list the following appeals on board tomorrow i.e. on 3rd August, 2018 - Income Tax Appeal No. 130 of 2016, 151 of 2016, 293 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 2-8-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. Mr. N.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Regarding Question no.1, (i) Mr. Mohanty, Learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue very fairly states that the issue arising herein stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the respondent-Assessee by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Pune V/s. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bombay). (ii) In the above view, Question no.1 does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 4. Regarding Question no.2, (i) Mr. Mohanty fairly invites our attention to the decisions of this Court in the case of Commissioner of IncomeTax-1, Mumbai V/s. M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No. 1873 of 2013) rendered on 26th July, 2016 and in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-III V/s. M/s. Arch Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd (Income Tax Appeal No.1037 of 2014) rendered on 6th December, 2016 dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this very question of law. Inspite of the above, in the subsequent case of Commissioner of Income-Tax V/s. M/s. Milton's Pvt. Limited (Income Tax Appeal No. 2301 of 2013) and Commissioner of IncomeTax-8 Vs. M/s. Confidence Petroleum India. Ltd. (Income Tax Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue which are already taken by this Court would be informed to their Advocates who would also be continuously updated of the decisions taken by this Court on the questions of law. This is to ensure that there is consistency in the view taken by this Court. However, it appears that the Revenue has not carried out the assurance which was made to the Court. We would expect the Revenue to look into this issue at the highest level and ensure that the State takes a consistent view and does not agitate matters on which the Court has already taken a view, without pointing out the earlier order of this Court to the subsequent Bench. It is possible that, there can be certain distinguishing features which may require the next Court to admit the question which has been otherwise dismissed by an earlier order. But this would not be an issue which could arise in the case of pure question of law as raised herein. The decision on the question raised is not related to and/or dependent upon finding upon any particular fact. We note that the decision of this Court in Milton Private Limited (supra) renderred on 20th February, 2017 makes a reference to a Supreme Court decision in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. (supra) on 20th February, 2017 and 3rd April, 2017. The learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Revenue has stated yesterday that he cannot justify this conduct. Further, he stated that in view of this Court's order in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No. 1873 of 2013) decided on 26th July, 2016 (supra) and in M/s. Arch Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No. 1037 of 2014) rendered on 16th December 2016 (supra), the Revenue would file a praecipe listing out all the pending matters raising identical issue, to be placed on board on 3rd August, 2018 and disposed of in terms of this Court's order in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra). Thereafter the Revenue would carry our orders in SLP to the Apex Court to be tagged along with the SLP filed in case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra). It was stated on behalf of the Revenue that a praecipe would be filed indicating the above facts along with the list of pending appeals in this Court raising identical issue, some of which have been admitted and some awaiting admission. 5. Consequent to the above, the advocate for the Revenue Mr. Pinto filed a handwritten praeci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law is settled for the tax payers within the State of Maharashtra till the time the Apex Court takes a final view on the issue arising before us. Failing this, the Officers of the Revenue may arbitrarily decide which view of this Court it should follow and the justification would be (even in the absence of any distinguishing facts) the contradictory views of this Court. We have time and again reiterated that equality of treatment at the hands of law is an essential attribute of the Rule of Law, about which we as a State are justifiably proud. We let the matter rest here. 9. In the above view, for the aforesaid reasons we list the following appeals on board tomorrow i.e. on 3rd August, 2018 along with the these three appeals for final disposal at 3.00 p.m. (i) ITXA No. 841 of 2011 (Times Guarantee Vs. CIT) (ii) ITXA No.842 of 2011 (Time Guarantee Vs. CIT) (iii) ITXA No. 2301 of 2013 (CIT Vs. Milton's Pvt. Ltd.) (iv) ITXA No. 582 of 2014 (CIT Vs. Confidence Petroleum India Ltd.) (v) ITXA No. 795 of 2014 (CIT Vs. Associated Cable Pvt. Ltd.) 10. We trust the above list exhausts the appeals on this issue pending in this Court. 11. After h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
