LAWS(UTN)-2006-4-3

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DISTRICT EXCISE OFFICER

Decided On April 05, 2006
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT EXCISE OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEALS Nos. 35/2001, 37/2001 and 39/2001 have been filed by the appellants against the common order dated May 3, 2000, passed by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' New Delhi (in short 'the ITAT'), in I.T.A. Nos. 376, 377 and 378/D of 1997, respectively (assessment years 1992 -93, 1993 -94 and 1994 -95), whereby the learned Income -tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the cross -objections of the Revenue on the agreement of the parties that the issue involved in the present cross -objections stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 162 to 165 (Delhi) of 1998 dated March 29, 2000.

(2.) APPEALS Nos. 55/2003, 56/2003, 57/2003 and 58/2003 have been filed by the appellants against the common order dated August 1, 2001, passed by learned Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi in I.T.A. Nos. 378, 377, 376 and 379/Delhi of 1997, respectively, for the financial years 1991 -92, 1992 -93, 1993 -94 and 1994 -95, whereby the learned Income -tax Appellate Tribunal has quashed the orders of the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) (in short 'the CIT(A)'), and allowed the appeals filed by the District Excise Officer, Dehradun, and recorded his finding that the assessee is not an assessee in default under Section 206C of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(3.) APPEALS Nos. 197 of 2005 and 198 of 2005 have been filed by the appellants against the common order passed by the learned Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench : 'B' New Delhi, in T.D.S. Nos. 131 and 132/ Delhi of 2003, respectively, for the financial years 1995 -96 and 1996 -97, whereby the learned Income -tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Department and upheld the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) and held that there were no liability cast on the District Excise Officer to deduct TDS on the bid money and deleted the interest charged under Section 206C(7) of the Act.