TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 1220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epted by the Revenue and is challenged by filing an SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,19,498/- incurred by the assessee on Kavesar Unit in total disregard to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhabda & Sons (L.M.) V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, 65 ITR 638 ? (c ) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,27,678/- being depreciation in respect of assets of Kavesar without appreciating the fact that assessee has discontinued its pigment operation at Kavesar from 01.04.1999 and the assets in question were never put to use ? 3. This appeal was on board on 12th January, 2016. At that time, we passed an order indicating that question (a) according to the Revenue itself stands concluded against the Revenue as the Apex Court had dismissed the challenge of the Revenue to the decision of this Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 328 ITR 21 and the impugned order has merely followed the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....up for admission. 6. In DIT (IT) v/s. Credit Agricole Indosuez 377 ITR 102, we had observed as under: " .... .... .... ..... ..... In matters of tax, justice requires that there must be certainty of law which presupposes equal application of law. Thus, where the issue in controversy stands settled by the decisions of this court or the Tribunal in any other case and the Revenue has accepted that decision then in that event the Revenue ought not to agitate the issue further unless there is some cogent justification such as change in law or some later decision of an higher forum, etc. then in such cases appropriately the appeal memo itself must specify the reasons for preferring an appeal failing which at least before admission the officer concerned should file an affidavit pointing out the reasons for filing the appeal. It is only when the court is satisfied with the reasons given, that the merits of the issue need the examine of purposes for admission (please see I.T.A. No. 37 of 2013 CIT v/s. Procter and Gamble Home Products Ltd. Dated January 19, 2015 (2015) 377 ITR 66 (Bom); ITA No.269 of 2013 CIT v/s. SBI dated February 4, 2015 (2015) 375 ITR 20 (Bom);....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Tribunal follows the earlier order of the Tribunal, then the assessee must be treated in the same manner in which the assessee in the earlier case has been treated. However, there could be valid reasons for the Revenue to take a different view in this case, then that taken in the earlier case, then the reasons for the same must be set out in the memo of appeal or at least before the hearing in an affidavit filed by the Officer of the Revenue before the Court. The State cannot act arbitrarily to pick and chose the orders from which appeals would be filed. 8. In fact we have time and again in numerous orders (see DIT(IT) v/s. Credit Agricole Indosuzz 377 ITR 102, CIT v/s. Proctor and Gamble Home Production Ltd. 377 ITR 66, CIT v/s. SBI 375 ITR 20 and DIT v/s. Citi Bank 377 ITR 69.) had emphasized the need for equal treatment at the hands of the State. In the circumstance, we had requested the State that in case the order being challenged before the Court has merely followed its earlier order and the Revenue has accepted the same by not filing an appeal, then the Officer concerned must justify the filing of the appeal in this case either in its appeal memo or by filing a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and the same according to the Revenue has been dismissed on 28th October, 2013. Therefore, question (a) as raised does not survive. Thus, this question is not entertained. 11. So far as questions (b) and (c) are concerned, the Revenue has already accepted the earlier order of the Tribunal in case of the same respondent assessee for Assessment Year 2002-03 (ITA No.3858/Mum/2006) which has been merely followed by the impugned order. There is no justification shown warranting filing of an appeal from the impugned order, when it has merely followed the earlier orders in Assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2002-03. Mrs. Bharucha states that the Department has accepted the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Respondent Assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03, which has been followed by the impugned order. Although no affidavit has been filed indicating the reasons as to why the Revenue has preferred the present appeal on the above two issues when the earlier order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2002-03 has been accepted by the Revenue. The statement is made by Mrs. Bharucha is on the basis of instructions given by one Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav in his ....