TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kulkarni,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Vimal Gupta With Mr. Suresh Kumar, Ms. S. V. Bharucha And Ms. Padma Divakar For the Respondent : Mr. P. J. Pardiwalla, Mr. Atul K. Jasani ORDER P. C. 1] This appeal by revenue challenges the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Assessee. The order dated 30th May, 2006 is delivered in relation to the assessment year 2000-01. 2] Mr. Vimal Gupta, the learned senior counsel appearing in support of this appeal submitted that in this appeal, the substantial question of law are thus which have been formulated at page 12 to 14 of the paper book, which read thus:- (a) The substantial question of law that arises in the present appeal is regarding the true scope and correct interpretation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in upholding that the deletion of the disallowance on account of Aircraft re-delivery charges, Aircraft heavy maintenance and major engine repairs, which are in the nature of contingent expenditure and not on actual basis? (b) The second su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer has rightly questioned the exercise undertaken by the assessee and disallowed the contingent expenditure, the claim for depreciation and equally on the provision for spares obsolescence. He also submits that the expenditure on repairs to furnitures and fixtures is a claim which raises substantial question of law. None of the questions, therefore, can be termed as purely academicable but are live and recurring. 4] Mr. Pardiwalla, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, firstly submits that the appeal raises no substantial question of law, as has been held by the tribunal consistently and in relation to the same assessee in prior assessment years, the very deductions which were disallowed, were granted. The revenue has not been serious in its challenge to the orders passed by the tribunal inasmuch as some of its appeals filed in this Court were not pursued with the same expediency as is now exhibited. The appeals were dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Some of the appeals may have been the subject matter of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not indicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by this Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court restored the appeal to the file of this Court and directed that it be considered in accordance with law. All that the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized is that if the delay could have been condoned by applying a liberal principle, then, this was a fit case where it should have been so condoned, moreso, when there are no malafides attributed to the revenue. Apart from that, we do not see anything in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and which, with respect, oblige us to entertain this appeal on all the questions projected as substantial questions of law. 7] However, we find that in relation to question No.8 and deletion of disallowance on account of aircraft re-delivery charges, aircraft heavy maintenance and major engine repairs so also in relation to the expenses in respect of frequent flyer programme, the appeal raises substantial question of law. It is admitted on these questions. Therefore, the appeal is admitted on the following two questions which we find to be substantial question of law:- (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in upholding that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and which are to be found in para-33 of the order under challenge do not suffer from any perversity or error apparent on the face of the record. The view taken is possible and in the given facts and circumstances. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in relation to the same. It is also dismissed in relation to the claim for expenses on furniture. We find that the issue raised by the revenue before the tribunal in this case was answered by the tribunal by applying the correct legal principles. It has found that the assessee was required to maintain the facilities at airport and equally in the other premises though they are not owned by the assessee. The assessee is also required to look into the convenience of the customers. Equally, if something is made so as to give comfort to the customers and attract them on that basis, then, that is not something which is totally impermissible or contrary to law. In that regard, we have perused the order passed by the tribunal, we find that the view taken by the tribunal does not suffer from a serious legal infirmity or an error of law apparent on the face of the record. For this reason, we refuse to entertain this question as well. 10] In rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
