Frivolous Appeals - Strictures against Revenue
IN a recent judgement in an Income Tax Appeal, the Bombay High Court came down heavily on the Revenue. The High Court observed,
It is unfortunate that the Revenue files Appeals year after year pertaining to the same Assessee and raising the same issues and questions which have been raised earlier duly considered and have not been answered in favour of the Revenue by this Court.
This is one more instance of the Revenue urging before this Court that firstly a film production unit or a Company is not an industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 80 IB of the Income Tax Act 1961.
We find that when the Tribunal passed an order in the case of very Assessee, and which order could not be successfully assailed by the Revenue, then, instead of following and applying it and maintaining and upholding the rule of consistency, the authorities disobey the same. The Tribunal's order and in the case of very Assessee have during prior Assessment Years considered identical questions and issues. We do not see how the Revenue can repeatedly bring matters before this Court and on same issues in successive years when it has not been able to succeed in its earlier endeavour. This tendency will have to be curbed because factual matters are being reopened by such repeated exercises and we strongly disapprove the same.
When the parties have dealt with each other, for number of years and knowing fully well what the issues are, then, the least that is expected from the Department or the Revenue is that it will abide by the Tribunal's orders and grant the deduction in accordance therewith. More so, when the Tribunals' orders are challenged in this Court but the challenge fails, the very contention raised before the Tribunal but not accepted is sought to be raised. We do not see how a Court of law, that too the highest Court, can be called upon to undertake an exercise to convince the Revenue that what it is urging before it is not tenable either in law or in facts. It is not the function of this Court to persuade the authorities. They must accept the claims or deductions as in the present case and follow the Tribunal's orders on factual issues. That would uphold rule of consistency and certainty. We find that extreme arguments are canvassed so as to take a chance and try to unsettle the settled matters and things. This tendency has to be curbed and we must come down heavily on parties to curb it, may it be the Revenue.