bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1218 OF 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. M/s.M.L.Shah & Co.(Machinery) Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.J.S.Saluja with Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant. Mr.Nishant Thakker i/b. MINT and Conferers for respondent. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 10th NOVEMBER,2009 P.C. 1. Heard. Perused appeal. 2. Mr.J.S.Saluja, on instructions of Mr.Bhavarsingh, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, fairly states that the Tribunal has relied on the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Waman Industrial Chemicals Ltd. for the A.Y.1995-96. The said order and judgment of the Tribunal has been accepted by the Revenue. It is also brought to our notice that the coordinate bench has also followed the said judgment for the A.Ys.1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. No appeal was filed challenging the order of the Tribunal in the case of Waman Industrial Chemicals Ltd. for the A.Y.1995-96. The appeal filed for the subsequent year i.e. 2000-01 was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is, thus, clear that the order of the Tribunal for earlier years have been accepted by the Revenue. Apart from this, the Tribunal has also relied on the Circular issued by the CBDT on 13th December, 1963 and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.K.Engineering & Forging (P) Ltd. (1996) 87 Taxman 101 Cal., which was followed by the Tribunal. 3. Since no appeal was preferred and the order of the Tribunal in Waman Industrial Chemicals Ltd. for the year 1995-96 has been accepted by the Revenue, it binds the Revenue. No material is brought to our notice that as to why those orders were not challenged and as to why the appeal has been filed only in this case. The Revenue cannot say that for one year they will file an appeal and for another, they will not. Even on merits also, it is not the case of the Revenue that the order of the Tribunal is perverse. Under these circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)