Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Indocount Finance Ltd. on 15 December, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2004)186CTR(DEL)659
Bench: D.K. Jain, Madan B. Lokur
ORDER
1. The issue sought to be raised by the Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, already stands concluded by a decision of this Court in CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. and Ors. (2003) 259 ITR 69 (Del) and, therefore, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, survives for our consideration.
2. It is however submitted by Mr. Jolly learned counsel for the Revenue, that in fact the penultimate paragraph of the said decision in fact supports the case of the Revenue inasmuch as the assessed. had not adduced any evidence to show that the leased out vehicles were used by the lessee in the business of running them on hire.
3. We are unable to agree with learned counsel. We find that before the first appellate authority it was specifically pleaded on behalf of the assessed that there was no difference in the use of trucks by the assessed as owner on hire or in giving the trucks to some other party for using them "in their business on hire". The first appellate authority has not commented adversely, on the said plea. Even before the Tribunal it was never pleaded that the leased out trucks were not used in the business of hire. It is now too late in the day for the Revenue to raise such an issue for the first time in this appeal, which, having regard to the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Section 260A of the Act, cannot be permitted. It was then contended by learned counsel for the Revenue that the Supreme Court has now issued notice in some of the special leave petitions filed by the Revenue on a similar issue.
4. We are of the considered opinion that in view of the fact that the apex Court has dismissed special leave petitions filed by the Revenue as well as by the assessed against the afore-noted judgment of this Court and it has attained finality, the issue raised cannot be termed as a substantial question of law. Accordingly, we decline to entertain the appeal.