Repeated tax appeals on an already-decided question of law need not be entertained despite a pending Supreme Court appeal.

Section 260A(5) of the Income-tax Act requires the High Court to decide the formulated question of law and deliver judgment on it. Where the same question had already been decided by the same High Court against the Revenue, the pendency of an appeal against that earlier ruling before the Supreme Court did not make the precedent ineffective or justify re-admission of the same issue. The Court stated that repeated appeals on an identical question were unnecessary, and any answer on admission would still have to follow the earlier decision. The appeal was therefore not entertained and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal raising a question of law already decided by the same High Court against the Revenue could be entertained again merely because an appeal against that earlier decision was pending before the Supreme Court.

Analysis: Section 260A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires the High Court to decide the formulated question of law and deliver judgment on it. Once the Court had already considered the very question and reached a definite conclusion against the Revenue, the pendency of an appeal against that earlier decision did not make the judgment ineffective. The Court held that it was not necessary to admit repeated appeals on the same question, and that any answer, if the appeal were admitted, would still have to follow the earlier decision of the Court.

Conclusion: The appeal was not entertained and was rejected.

---