Shiv ita818.12 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.818 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant. Vs. M/s.Procter and Gamble Distribution Company Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr. Arvind Pinto withMr.Tejveer Singh for Appellant. Mr. F.V. Irani with Mr.Balasaheb Yevle i/b Rajesh Shah & Co. for Respondent. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.K. MENON, JJ. DATED : 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. P.C. : 1. This appeal challenges order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29th July, 2011. 2. At outset Mr.Irani appearing on behalf of Assessee raises objection to maintainability of present appeal on ground that all three questions termed as substantial questions of law were subject matter of substantive appeal to this Court being Income Tax (L) No.3600/2008, 3601/2008 and 3605 of 2008. These appeals were brought by Revenue and to challenge findings in order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment years 1994-95, 19995-96 and 1996-97. 1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2020 17:29:34 ::: ita818.12 These appeals have been dismissed by this Court as being barred by limitation. order in that behalf was challenged before Supreme Court and despite Supreme Court granting liberty to department to move this Court by way of review of order of this Court, Review Petitions filed were not pursued and were allowed to be rejected on technical grounds. Hence, pure findings of fact would bind Revenue and rule of consistency should be applied. 3. Mr.Pinto would submit that appeals have been dismissed not on merits but on technical grounds and therefore present appeal is maintainable. 4. Having perused compilation placed before us and considering rival contentions on point of maintainability we are of opinion that appeals of Revenue have been dismissed not on merits but on technical grounds. Therefore this appeal is not dismissed on any technicality or merely by applying principle invoked by Mr.Irani. 5. However on careful perusal of order of Tribunal impugned in this appeal and in light of questions raised we are unable to accept arguments of Mr.Pinto. 2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2020 17:29:34 ::: ita818.12 6. Insofar as first question is concerned, tribunal has reversed findings in order of Joint Commissioner and to extent indicated in impugned order by looking at agreement. There is agreement under which M/s.Godrej Soaps Ltd. allowed Assessee use of its trade mark for seven years. That was because of arrangement as between assessee and M/s.Godrej Soaps Ltd. Upon careful perusal of clauses of agreement and which must be read in entirety so also together, tribunal noted that trade marks have not been acquired by assessee. There is what is termed as registered user agreement. In relation to that only limited permission or authority is given to assessee and that is to use trade mark for specified number of years on payment of agreed fee. It is in these circumstances, rights conferred have been looked as inconclusive and enduring in nature, that findings of facts rendered by tribunal cannot be termed as perverse. Assessing Officer has erroneously assumed that trade mark has been acquired by assessee by arrangement brought to his notice. Having analysed that arrangement accordingly and as whole, tribunal arrived at above factual finding. In light of material placed on record such finding cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on face of record. first question cannot be termed as substantial question of law. 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2020 17:29:34 ::: ita818.12 7. In relation to question nos.2 and 3, tribunal has referred to same facts as are brought on record in relation to earlier assessment years. There being no distinguishing factual feature that tribunal followed its earlier view, in relation to both these questions. tribunal has recorded such finding as revenue was unable to bring on record anything to distinguish factual matters noted for earlier assessment years. We find that tribunal did not committed any error in following principle of consistency and applying its earlier view. In these circumstances even question nos.2 and 3 are not substantial questions of law. 8. As result of above conclusions, we do not find that appeal raises any substantial questions of law. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (A.K. MENON,J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2020 17:29:34 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Procter and Gamble Distribution Company Ltd