TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 1049
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith him). ORDER This order shall dispose of C.A.Nos.1533 and 1537 of 2006. For the sake of brevity the facts are taken from C.A.No.1533 of 2006. C.A.No.1533 of 2006 has been filed against judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay passed on 05th March 2003 in Income Tax Reference No.5 of 1994 titled, 'Citibank N.A. Bombay v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-III, Bombay' 262 ITR 47 (Bom.). The assessment year in question is 1981-1982. Three questions of law which have been raised in this appeal are set out below : "(A) Whether in the facts and circumstances the, High Court was right in law in holding that the interest received by the assessee on the sale of securities held by it, was assessable to tax under the head 'inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to be dismissed. A three Judge Bench of this Court in a recent decision in the case of C.K.Gangadharan & Another vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin reported in 2008 (10) SCALE 426, has held that the revenue is not precluded from filing an appeal merely because no appeal was filed by the revenue against the earlier similar orders for justifiable reasons which have been spelt out in the judgment in paras 11 to 13, which are reproduced below: "11. The order of reference would go to show that same was necessary because of certain observations in Berger Paints India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta (2004 (12) SCC 42). The decision in Union of India and Ors. v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Anr. (2001 (10) SCC 231) was explai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic interest to do so or for a pronouncement by the higher court when divergent views are expressed by the Tribunals or the High Courts." Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the revenue has neither raised nor pleaded any of the reasons spelt out by a three Judge Bench in the case of C.K.Gangadharan (supra). Even the point of "just cause" has not been made out. Question (A) thus stands decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. As regards Questions (B) and (C) learned Judges of the High Court, after reproducing Section 20(1)(i) as was applicable in the assessment year 1981-82 and Section 40A(5) has recorded the following finding : "We do not find any merit in the case of the Department. ....