Bombay High Court Cautions Departmental Advocates for Re-arguing Settled Concluded Issues [Read Judgment]

A division bench of the Bombay High Court, last week slammed the departmental advocates for re-arguing settled concluded issues.

The question that came before the Bombay High Court in The Pr. Commissioner of Income vs. M/s. JWC Logistics Park Pvt. Ltd was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was justified in allowing the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act,1961 made by the assessee. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue’s appeal by holding that Container Freight Station (CFS) run by the respondent-assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act as an infrastructure facility. The decision was made by placing reliance on the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT and the decision of a regular bench of the Tribunal in Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Vs. ACIT.

The Revenue submitted that as Appeals have been filed against the two decisions of the Tribunal, before the High Court, the Revenue’s Appeal be allowed. This submission was not accepted by the Tribunal. In the meantime, the above two Tribunal decisions were upheld by the High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. and Anr, while dismissing the Revenue’s Appeal.

The Bench reminded the Counsel for the Revenue that the decision of the Co-ordinate bench was binding on it and if the Revenue had any grievance with the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench that they should approach the Supreme Court. Despite such reminder, the Counsel for the Revenue insisted that the decision was wrong and would not bind as it had not declared a Circular issued by the CBDT bad or not binding.

Dismissing the appeal, the Bench comprising of Justice Sandeep K. Shinde & Justice M.S. Sanklecha observed “ We are pained to record this most unreasonable attitude on the part of the Advocate for the Revenue of seeking to reargue settled concluded issues, without having obtained any stay from the Apex Court. This results in unnecessary wastage of the scarce judicial time available in the context of a large number of the appeals awaiting consideration. We would expect Mr. Chhotaray, as an Advocate to act with responsibility as an Officer of the Court and not merely argue for the sake of arguing when an issue is clearly covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Court and take up scarce judicial time. The Advocate must bear in mind that this is a Court of law and not a University/College Debating Society, where debates are held for academic stimulation. We deal with real-life disputes and decide them in accordance with the Rule of Law, of which an important limb is uniformity of application of law. This on the basis of judicial discipline and law of precedents.”