IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No. 321 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 11.07.2008 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana .... APPELLANT Versus M/s Liberty Enterprises, Railway Road, Karnal ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. K.K. Mehta, Advocate, for the appellant-revenue. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), against the order dated 15.6.2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench `E', Delhi, passed in ITA No. 1454/Del/2004 for the assessment year 1999-2000. In the present case, the assessee is a limited company engaged in manufacture and sale of footwears and shoe uppers etc. For the assessment year 1999-2000, the assessee filed its return declaring income of Rs. 6,27,72,090/-. The Assessing Officer treated the expenditure of Rs.63,000/- on Glow Sign Boards as expenditure of capital nature. The ITA No. 321 of 2008 -2- Assessing Officer made addition of the same in the income and completed the assessment at an income of Rs. 6,71,70,900/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Ludhiana, who vide his order dated 5.12.2003, following the orders of the ITAT passed in ITA No. 3768/Del/90 and 7147 & 7148/Del/90 in assessee's own case, allowed the appeal of the assessee, while allowing the deduction, as claimed. Not satisfied with the said order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, who vide its order dated 15.6.2007, following its earlier decision in case of the assessee and in case of its sister concern dismissed the appeal. Against the said order, the instant appeal has been filed by the Revenue raising the following substantial question of law : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of the CIT (A) that expenses of Rs. 63,000/- incurred on glow sign Boards were of revenue nature?” Counsel for the Revenue has fairly conceded that in case of the sister concern of the assessee M/s Liberty Group Marketing Division, Karnal, ten appeals (ITAs No. 9 of 2002, 79, 200, 201 of 2005, 159, 160 of 2006, 452, 453, 527 and 528 of 2007), filed by the Revenue, raising the similar substantial question of law, have been dismissed by this Court, by a common judgment dated April 22, 2008. ITA No. 321 of 2008 -3- Since the aforesaid substantial question of law has already been answered by this Court against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, therefore, the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is answered in affirmative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE July 11, 2008 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) ndj JUDGE