DIRECTOR, INCOME TAX Vs. OFFSHORE INTERNATIONAL VENTURES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In respect of Assessment Year 2006-2007, several assessment orders were passed in relation to several employees of the assessees. In relation to those assessment orders, common questions of law arose. Appeals were preferred against those assessment orders. Those were decided by a single order. Against the appellate order, several appeals were filed before the Tribunal. Those were dealt with by a common order by the Tribunal. Thus, whereas there were several assessment orders against each of the respondent assessee in respect of their employees, there was one common appellate order in respect of each of the respondent assessee although there were several appeals and, at the same time, there was one common order of the Tribunal in respect of each of the assessee despite there being several appeals before the Tribunal. Aggrieved by those four several orders of the Tribunal, four appeals, presently being dealt with, have been filed by the Department and not several appeals. For that reason, an objection has been taken by the respondents that the appeals are not maintainable.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on the objection.

(3.) There is a judgment of the Calcutta High Court, on the point, rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Tata Tea Ltd. & others, 2005 272 ITR 42. There the Hon'ble Court pronounced that it is unable to accept the contention that only one appeal is permitted by reason of the expression used under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against the consolidated order, whether it includes several years of assessment of the same assessee or one or more of different assessees. The Hon'ble Court, however, did not declare that the appeals it was considering following the practice and procedure followed in that Court as incompetent. The Court noted that when Section 253 of the Act was in vogue, a Division Bench of the Court issued a direction on 3 rd February, 1992 that, against one consolidated order of the Tribunal, only one application for reference shall be filed covering all the assessment orders involved and no separate application shall be filed and that, in terms thereof, even after introduction of Section 260A in the Act, same procedure continued to be followed in appeals under Section 260A of the Act. The Court held that the practice and procedure for reference cannot be inducted in respect of appeals and that as soon as the Civil Procedure Code applies, the appeal against a consolidated order will relate to each individual case though the order might dispose of more than one. It held that when more than one appeal or suit are disposed of by a common judgment, the order pursuant to the common judgment affects each individual case / appeal and, as such, there cannot be one appeal against a consolidated order. It was, however, declared that the practice and procedure followed so long by reason of the direction dated 3 rd February, 1992 by the Division Bench should be treated as an addition to the rules made by the High Court in relation to preferring of appeals and cannot be questioned. It held that such practice cannot be followed ipso facto in the case of appeals under Section 260A of the Act in view of basic difference in jurisdiction exercised by the High Court on a reference under Section 256 and those on appeals under Section 260A. It held that, for the sake of convenience, one appeal may be filed in which different assessees may join to espouse their respective cases in respect of the respective assessment years, but such an appeal remains to be preferred against each of the orders passed in each of the assessments or appeals even if one memorandum of appeal is filed. The same represents or relates to the causes of action or assessments of different assessees and also allows such different assessees to espouse their respective causes in the respective appeals, though decided by a common judgment. It pronounced that, accordingly, consolidated appeals represent different causes of action giving rise to separate appeals since consolidated into one and, therefore, court fee would be payable in respect of each appeal under Section 260A of the Act against each assessment year and concerning each assessee, since consolidated. In that case, the Court was concerned with liability to pay court fees in respect of different appeals consolidated into one.