itxa-37-2013 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY rt ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ou INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax 8 .. Appellant. V/s. C M/s. Proctor and Gamble Home Products Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr. Tejveer Singh, for Appellant. h Mr. F. V. Irani i/b. Rajesh Shah & Co., for Respondent. ig CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA, & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 19th JANUARY, 2015. H P.C: This appeal by Revenue under Section 260 of y Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges order dated 5 th October, 2011 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). ba 2 following question of law has been raised for our consideration: om Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal is justified in holding expenditure of Rs.6,43,47,284/ incurred for production of T. V. films and commercials as revenue in nature, without B appreciating fact that advertisement films are assets which are owned by assessee and are reusable over indefinite period of time? 3 Tribunal by impugned order dated 5 th October, 2011 dismissed Revenue's appeal on ground that issue arising in S.R.JOSHI 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2016 12:19:17 ::: itxa-37-2013 present case is covered against Revenue by decision of this Court in CIT v/s. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd. 315 ITR 134. We find that rt even for earlier Assessment Years 1997 98, 2002 03 and 2003 04, ou appeal of Revenue on identical issue from orders of Tribunal were dismissed by this Court in Income Tax Appeal Nos.202 of 2011 on 4th July, 2012, Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1321 of 2011 and C Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1322 of 2011 on 12th March, 2013. 4 In spite of issue being covered by decision of this h Court in Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd. (supra) as well as by order dated 4th July, 2012 in Income Tax Appeal No.202 of 2011 in respect of ig Assessment Year 1997 98, Revenue has chosen to persist with this Appeal. However, not only appeal memo does not indicate any reason H why Revenue is seeking to appeal against order which already stands concluded in favour of Respondent Assessee but even today they are unable to explain. y ba 5 In view of fact that issue being challenged in impugned order stands concluded by decision of this Court, no substantial question of law arises. Therefore, Appeal is dismissed. om 6 However, before parting, it needs to be pointed out that we have noticed that Revenue has been preferring appeals from orders of Tribunal even where issue stands concluded by B orders of this High Court. These appeals are filed by Revenue in very causal manner without indicating basis of challenge i.e. some distinction in facts from order of High Court or that order of jurisdictional High Court is subject matter of challenge before S.R.JOSHI 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2016 12:19:17 ::: itxa-37-2013 Apex Court. In absence of above explanation, it follows that there are times when even though decision of jurisdictional High rt Court has been accepted by Revenue and yet Revenue ou chooses to file appeal on same issue before this Court. Rule of law implies certainty of law and State filing appeals on settled issues arbitrarily and/or without any application of mind. This filing of appeal C without due application of mind leads to attempting to unsettle settled position without reasons. This casual manner of filing appeals subjects assessee to unnecessary expenditure and at times anxiety. Even h Revenue incurs substantial expenses in pursuing unwarranted cases, ig which are sheer waste of public money. least that Revenue should do is to examine whether or not decision of jurisdictional H High Court being relied upon by Tribunal, is subject matter of challenge before Apex Court or is otherwise distinguishable and same must be indicated in appeal memo. y 7 In above view, we were contemplating to impose costs on ba Revenue. However, we noticed that on earlier occasion when costs were imposed on Revenue, it seemed to matter little to Officers, om for after all amount came out of general pool of tax paid by tax payers. In circumstances, we are now putting Officers of Revenue to notice, that in all cases including where appeals are filed, Offices instructing Counsel would review whether appeal should B at all be pressed in view of Revenue having accepted jurisdictional High Court's order on identical issue and take necessary instructions from Commissioner of Income Tax to withdraw and/or not press appeal. Alternatively, in case conscious decision is taken to press appeal, then averment to effect that either case is S.R.JOSHI 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2016 12:19:17 ::: itxa-37-2013 distinguishable or appeal has been preferred from decision of this Court to Apex Court if not averred in appeal memo, then further rt affidavit in support be filed indicating reasons. In absence of ou above, we will be compelled to impose heavy/exemplary costs to be personally paid by jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax under whose jurisdiction, appeal is being filed and pressed in spite of C issue being settled by this Court and same having been accepted by Revenue. h 8 It is expected of Revenue that in light of above observations it would review all appeals which are already filed and ig where issue stands concluded by virtue of decision of this Court which has been accepted by Revenue, withdraw such appeals. Needless to H state that above examination will also be done in case of new appeals under Section 260A of Act before filing them. y 9 With above observations/directions, Appeal is dismissed. ba No order as to costs. 10 copy of this order be communicated by Office and Counsel for Revenue to Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, om Mumbai and Central Board of Direct Taxes for necessary action. B (G.S.KULKARNI,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) S.R.JOSHI 4 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2016 12:19:17 ::: The Commissioner of Income-tax -­8 v. M/s. Proctor and Gamble Home Products Ltd