1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2320 OF 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Spectrum Business Support Ltd. ..Respondent. Smt. Padma Divekar for appellant. Mr. S.J. Mehta for respondent. CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 5TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. :- 1. In the above appeal by the revenue against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 9/2/2009, the following question of law has been framed:- “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in law, was justified in confirming the order of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of expenditure on Technology creating and data base, without appreciating the fact that the said expenditure was capital in nature ? “ 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue has fairly stated that the Tribunal has arrived at its finding against the revenue relying upon the previous decisions pertaining to the same assessee for earlier assessment years. Attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the 2 revenue to the order dated 23rd July, 2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Appeal (L) Nos.464 and 465 of 2008 pertaining to the assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000 and to the order dated 23rd July, 2009 in Income Tax Appeal (L) Nos.475, 476 & 477 of 2008 pertaining to the assessment years 2002-03, 2001-02 and 2000-01 respectively. All the aforesaid appeals preferred by the revenue came to be dismissed for failure to comply with the conditional order for removal of office objections and since the appeals were barred by limitation. Admittedly, no Notices of Motion are taken out for restoration of the aforesaid appeals. In view of the statement, which is taken on record, it is not necessary to entertain the appeal since the appeal will be governed by the earlier decisions of the Tribunal which have attained finality between the same parties. Even otherwise, the view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view and the same does not give rise to any question of law. 3. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)