{"id":1969,"date":"2018-08-07T13:15:32","date_gmt":"2018-08-07T13:15:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-starflex-sealing-india-pvt-ltd-bomhcwww-itatonline-org\/"},"modified":"2018-08-07T13:15:32","modified_gmt":"2018-08-07T13:15:32","slug":"pcit-v-starflex-sealing-india-pvt-ltd-bomhcwww-itatonline-org","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-starflex-sealing-india-pvt-ltd-bomhcwww-itatonline-org\/","title":{"rendered":"PCIT v. Starflex Sealing India Pvt. Ltd. (Bom)(HC),www.itatonline.org"},"content":{"rendered":"

Question before the High Court was \u201c Whether, on the facts and in the<\/em>\u00a0circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon\u2019ble<\/em>\u00a0Tribunal is justified in allowing the claim of set-off<\/em>\u00a0of unabsorbed depreciation of assessment year<\/em>\u00a02000-01 beyond the period of 8 years ?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Court observed that (i) Mr. Mohanty fairly invites our attention to the decisions of this Court in the case of\u00a0Commissioner<\/strong>\u00a0of Income-Tax-1, Mumbai\u00a0 v. M\/s.\u00a0Hindustan<\/strong>\u00a0Unilever Ltd.\u00a0<\/strong>(ITA No. 1873 of 2013) rendered on 26th July, 2016 and in the case of\u00a0The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-III<\/strong>\u00a0 v.M\/s. Arch Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd\u00a0<\/strong>(Income Tax Appeal No.1037 of 2014) rendered on 6th December, 2016 dismissing the Revenue\u2019s appeal on this very question of law. Inspite of the above, in the subsequent case of\u00a0CIT \u00a0v. \u00a0Milton\u2018s Pvt. Limited\u00a0<\/strong>(ITA No. 2301 of 2013) and\u00a0CIT\u00a0 v.\u00a0 \u00a0Confidence Petroleum<\/strong>\u00a0India. Ltd<\/strong>. (Income Tax Appeal No. 582 of 2014) on an identical issue as raised herein were admitted on 20th February, 2017 and 3rd April, 2017 respectively. The order dated 20th February, 2017 of this Court listed the hearing of the Appeal along with ITA No. 841 of 2011 and ITA No. 842 of 2011 admitted earlier on the same issue.<\/p>\n

(ii) It appears that in\u00a0Milton\u2019s (Pvt) Ltd<\/em>. (supra) and\u00a0Confidence Petroleum (I) Ltd<\/em>. (supra), the attention of the Court was not drawn to the orders of this Court in\u00a0Hindustan Unilever\u00a0<\/em>(supra) and\u00a0M\/s.<\/em>\u00a0Arch Fine Chemicals\u00a0<\/em>(supra) although rendered prior to the admission of the appeals of Milton (P) Ltd. (supra) and\u00a0Confidence Petroleum (I) Ltd<\/em>. (supra). The decision of this Court in\u00a0Hindustan Unilever Ltd<\/em>. (supra) placed reliance upon the decision of Gujarat High Court in\u00a0General<\/strong>\u00a0Motors (I) Pvt. Ltd vs.\u00a0DCIT, 354 ITR 244\u00a0<\/strong>and the CBDT Circular No.14 of 2001 dated 22nd November, 2001. The order also records that nothing was shown by the Revenue as to why the decision of Gujarat High Court should not be followed. Infact \u00a0it appears earlier orders in respect of appeals of 2011 admitting this question was pointed out by the Revenue. It may be pointed out that, the same Advocate appeared for the Revenue in\u00a0\u00a0Hindustan Unilever\u00a0<\/em>(supra) and in\u00a0M\/s. Milton (P)<\/em>\u00a0Ltd<\/em>. (supra) and\u00a0Confidence Petroleum (I) Ltd.<\/em>\u00a0(supra). It is noted that, the decision in \u00a0Hindustan\u00a0Unilever\u00a0<\/em>(supra) at the time , the Court admitted the appeals by\u00a0M\/s. Milton (P) Ltd<\/em>. (supra) and\u00a0Confidence Petroleum (I) Ltd<\/em>. (supra) was not pointed out to the Court. Besides, at the hearing of the appeal of\u00a0Hindustan Unilever\u00a0<\/em>(supra) the fact that Income Tax Appeals No. 841 and 842 of 2011 were already admitted was not pointed out.<\/p>\n

(iii) We are pained at this attitude on the part of the State to obtain orders of admission on pure questions of law by not pointing out that an identical question was considered by this Court earlier and dismissed by speaking order.<\/p>\n

(iv) This is not for the first time that this has happened on the part of the Revenue. On an earlier occasion also, in the case of\u00a0The CIT\u00a0 v. TCL\u00a0India\u00a0Holdings Pvt.<\/strong>\u00a0Ltd. (ITA No. 2287 of 2013)\u00a0<\/strong>on 6th May, 2016 on similar issue arising, we were assured by the Revenue that proper steps would be taken to ensure that the State takes a consistent view and decisions on any issue 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.<\/p>\n

(v) 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.<\/p>\n

(vi) We note that the decision of this Court in\u00a0Milton Private Limited\u00a0<\/em>(supra) rendered on 20th February, 2017 makes a reference to a Supreme Court decision in the case of\u00a0Deputy Commissioner<\/strong>\u00a0of Income Tax vs. General Motors India P<\/strong>.\u00a0Ltd.<\/strong>\u00a0Mr. Mohanty is directed to produce a copy of the same on the next occasion. We would also want, Mr. Mohanty on the next occasion to bring on record by Affidavit, whether appeals have been filed from the orders of this Court in\u00a0Hindustan Unilever\u00a0<\/em>(supra) decided on 26th July, 2016 and\u00a0Arch Fine Chemicals<\/em>\u00a0(supra) decided on 6th December, 2016 to the Apex Court, when filed and the decision, if any, thereon.<\/p>\n

5. We adjourn the hearing of both these appeals by a period of 3 weeks as prayed for by Mr. Mohanty, for the Revenue.<\/p>\n

6. On the next occasion, we would expect a proper response from the Revenue and explanation as to why assurance given to us earlier that consistent view would be taken by the Revenue is not being followed. It is time, responsibility is fixed and the casual approach of the Revenue in prosecuting its appeals is stopped. We would also request the Additional Solicitor General to assist us on the next date.( ITXA-130-2016 & ITXA-151-2016 (SR.7), dt. 27.06.2018)<\/p>\n

[Click here to download PDF file]<\/strong>http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-content\/uploads\/Starflex-Sealing-Appeal-Strictures.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

S. 260A:Appeal- High Court-Strictures passed against the revenue for not following the assurance given earlier \u2013 Court observed that \u201c We are pained at this attitude on the part of the State to obtain orders of admission on pure questions of law by not pointing out that an identical question was considered by this Court earlier and dismissed by speaking order. Revenue has not carried out the assurance which was made earlier. Revenue should give proper explanation why assurance given earlier is not being followed. It is time responsibility is fixed and the casual approach of the Revenue in prosecuting its appeals is stopped\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1969","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-digest"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-vL","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1969","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1969"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1969\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1969"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1969"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1969"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}