Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Smt. Veena Gope Shroff (Bombay High Court)
Appeal Number : Income Tax Appeal no. 71 of 2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 27/01/2015
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (3996) Bombay High Court (720)

Merely stating that the tax effect was low in an earlier order resulting in not filing of an appeal across the bar, without the same being specifically put in affidavit or in the appeal memo cannot be accepted.   This manner of filing of appeals   enables   the   revenue   to   pick   and   choose  orders   from   which appeals   are   preferred   and   from   which   the   appeals   are   not   preferred rendering to a naught equal application of law on all.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2013
Commissioner of Income Tax
Vs.
Smt. Veena Gope Shroff
Mr. Abhay Ahuja, Advocates for Appellant.
Mr. Subhash Shetty, Advocate for Respondent.

CORAM :  M.S. SANKLECHA & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATED  :   27th JANUARY 2015

P.C.:  1. This appeal by the Revenue challenges the order dated 4th  July 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal).  The impugned   order   has   allowed   the   claim   of   the   respondent­ asessee   for exemption   under   Section   54  of   the   Income   Tax  Act,   1961  (the   ‘Act’) in respect of exchange of old flat for a new constructed building.   The impugned order of the tribunal has allowed relief by following its own decision in the case of J.K. Madan Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 6921/Mum/2010 on identical facts i.e. the same building and identical agreement as the respondent­ asseessee with the builder.

2. On   inquiry,   Mr.   Ahuja,   learned   Counsel   for   the   Revenue  informs us that no appeal has been filed in the case of J.K. Madan(supra) in view of the low tax effect.  However on reading of the order passed in the case of J.K. Madan (supra), it appears that the amount in dispute therein was a capital gain computed at Rs. 55.91 lakhs after deducting the indexed cost of acquisition from the sale consideration.   Merely stating that the tax effect was low in an earlier order resulting in not filing of an appeal across the bar, without the same being specifically put in affidavit or in the appeal memo cannot be accepted.   This manner of filing of appeals   enables   the   revenue   to   pick   and   choose  orders   from   which appeals   are   preferred   and   from   which   the   appeals   are   not   preferred rendering to a naught equal application of law on all.  Thus unless in the appeal memo or in an affidavit filed before/at the hearing of the appeal for admission, the officer of Revenue should set out the reasons why the ratio of earlier orders is inapplicable in the present facts, the appeal itself will not be entertained.  At this, Mr. Ahuja seeks four weeks time to take instructions and file an appropriate affidavit.

3. S.O. to 24th  February 2015.

[G.S. KULKARNI, J] [M.S. SANKLECHA, J.]

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (26766)
Type : Judiciary (10930)
Tags : high court judgments (4305) section 54 (126)

0 responses to “View taken in one case should be followed by department in respect of Filing of Appeals on similar issues”

  1. dr.g.balakrishnan phd ml says:

    right view of the hon court. seems revenue suffers from ego as if it is master advocate in law. sorry revenue it shows how lop sided is your thinking process. honor court or tribunal orders after all tribunal and court do not decide haphazardly decide cases . take note, else revenue would become a laughing stock, like the lad grabbing state laws, hon SC pulled up the union government as also state laws if you read in Noida development authority matter…it warned desist from grabbing lands from poor and handing over to richer contenders. hope revenue gets right message.
    Rule of law is more sacrosanct than your revenue collection spree!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *