DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1) NEW DELHI vs. BAUSCH & LOMB INDIA PVT LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/832/2019HC DelhiDLHC01037150201913 September 2019Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court observed that the ITAT's decision for the assessment year 2014-15 was predicated on this Court's prior judgment in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10, reported at (2016) 381 ITR 227. Furthermore, the Tribunal had also considered its own decision for assessment year 2012-13. Since the issues raised by the Revenue in the present appeal had already been authoritatively decided by the High Court in respect of earlier assessment years concerning the same assessee, the Court found no reason to entertain the present appeal. The principle applied is that of consistency and adherence to judicial precedent, particularly when the facts and issues are identical or substantially similar. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was dismissed on the ground of being non-entertainable due to prior binding decisions.

What were the facts?

The appeal, filed by the DCIT, Circle-4(1) New Delhi, challenges an order dated February 25, 2019, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 7808/Del/2018 for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee is Bausch & Lomb India Pvt Ltd. The High Court noted that the Tribunal's decision was based on this Court's prior ruling in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10, reported at (2016) 381 ITR 227. Additionally, the Tribunal had considered its own decision for assessment year 2012-13. Given these precedents, the High Court was not inclined to entertain the present appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the present appeal filed by the Revenue against the ITAT's order for assessment year 2014-15, given that the issues raised have already been decided by this Court in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly relies on the High Court's previous decisions in its own case for earlier assessment years (2006-07 to 2009-10) and the Tribunal's decision for AY 2012-13, suggesting that the present appeal should not be entertained as the issue is settled. The assessee did not present separate arguments on the merits of the case, but rather on the principle of stare decisis. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue is the appellant and has filed the appeal. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue on the merits of the case. Their contention is implicit in their act of filing the appeal against the ITAT's order.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~53. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 832/2019

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1) NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma and Ms. Adeeba Mujahid, Advocates.

versus

BAUSCH & LOMB INDIA PVT LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor and Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Advocates.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R % 13.09.2019

C.M. No. 40974/2019

Delay in filing is condoned.

The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 832/2019

The present appeal is directed against the order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.7808/Del/2018 for the assessment year 2014-15.

The Tribunal has based its decision on the decision of this Court in the in assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2006- 07, 2007-08, 2008-

09 & 2009-10 reported as (2016) 381 ITR 227 as well as in Assessment Year 2012-13 decided by the Tribunal itself. Since this Court has already rendered its decision on the issues raised by the appellant in respect of earlier assessment years relating to the respondent, we are not inclined to entertain the present appeal.

Dismissed.

VIPIN SANGHI, J

SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2019 kd

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →