JUDGMENT This appeal under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), challenges order dated June 6, 2012, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for assessment year 2006-07. Revenue has formulated following questions of law for our consideration: "(1) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in allowing deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of Income-tax Act, following decision in case of Union Bank of India v. Asst. CIT [2011] 16 Taxmann.com 304 ITAT (Mum), ignoring decision of Kerala High Court in case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2011] 198 Taxman 491 (Ker) in which it is held that financial corporation are separate and distinct entities different from scheduled banks which are covered by provisions of Banking Regulation Act? (2) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in allowing deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of Income-tax Act for assessment year 2006-07, ignoring decision of Kerala High Court in case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2011] 198 Taxman 491 (Ker) in which it is held that provisions of section 36(1)(viii) did not extend benefits of deduction to banking companies until section was amended by Finance Act 2006, with effect from April 1, 2007, and amendment has been held to be prospective, i.e., assessment year 2007-08?" We find that impugned order dated June 6, 2012, has held that there was no occasion for Commissioner of Income-tax to exercise its power of revision under section 263 of Act on question of deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viii) of Act. This conclusion was reached by following its decision in Union Bank of India v. Asst. CIT [2011] 16 Taxmann.com 304 (Mumbai) holding that deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of Act is to be allowed to Government banks even for years prior to assessment year 2007-08. amendment in assessment year 2007-08 includes banking companies. We were at very outset fairly informed by Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Revenue, that on aforesaid issue, decision of Tribunal in Union Bank of India (supra) has been accepted by Revenue. Mr. Suresh Kumar points out that although appeal has been filed by Revenue on other issues, no appeal has been filed on this issue. We have on earlier occasion in case of CIT v. Smt. Veena G. Shroff have observed in our order dated January 27, 2015, that when Revenue challenges order of Tribunal which in turn relies upon another decision rendered by it on same issue then in cases where Revenue has accepted order by not preferring any appeal against earlier order, Revenue should not challenge subsequent order on same issue. In case appeal is preferred from subsequent order, then memo of appeal must indicate reasons as to why appeal is being preferred in later case when no appeal was preferred from earlier order of Tribunal which has merely been followed in later case. In any case, officer concerned must at least file affidavit before matter comes up for admission, pointing out distinguishing features in present case from earlier case, warranting different view in case appeal is being pressed. absence of this being indicative of nonapplication of mind, does undoubtedly give opportunity to Revenue to arbitrarily pick and choose orders of Tribunal which they would challenge in appeal before this court. Uniformity in treatment at hands of law is basic premise of rule of law. We trust that Revenue would take appropriate steps to ensure that aforesaid directions be implemented in all subsequent matters which are pending admissions before this court. If this exercise is done by officers of Revenue, precious time of all concerned would be saved. Counsel for Revenue is directed to serve copy of this order to Chief Commissioner of Income-tax for appropriate action. Be that as it may, in facts of present case, there is no occasion for Commissioner of Income-tax to exercise his powers under section 263 of Act as view taken by Assessing Officer granting deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to respondent-assessee was possible view. This possible view is further fortified by decision of Tribunal in Union Bank of India (supra) which has also been accepted by Revenue. Besides, even Explanation to section 36(1)(viii) of Act as existing at relevant time, financial corporation has been defined to include public company and Government company. We fail to understand how respondent-assessee would not be covered by definition of "financial corporation" as stated in Explanation to section 36(1)(viii) of Act. In view of above, we see no reason to entertain present appeal. Accordingly, appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. State Bank of India