COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. JAMNADEVI AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) By a common order dt. 24th July, 2009 [reported as Asstt. CIT v. Kamal Kumar S. Agrawal (Indl.) and Ors.,2010 41 DTR 105 -- Ed.], which is impugned in these appeals, the Tribunal had disposed of 70 appeals filed by the Revenue. Although the impugned order of the Tribunal relates to 70 Assessees, the Revenue has filed appeals under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 only in respect of 43 Assessees. In respect of the remaining 27 Assessees, no appeals have been filed. To a query raised by the Court regarding the above discrepancy, learned Counsel for the Revenue stated that out of 27 Assessees, in case of 8 Assessees, appeals have not: been filed in view of the small tax effect and in the remaining 19 cases, the appeals have not been filed because the concerned CIT was of the opinion that no substantial question of low arises out of the common order of the Tribunal dt. 24th July, 2009.

(3.) In response to a further query as to why the Revenue considers these 43 appeals to be different form 19 cases where appeals have not been filed, the learned Counsel for the Revenue fairly stated that he does not find any difference in any of the appeals and submitted that lack of co-ordination between different commissionerates has resulted in filing appeals in some cases and not filing appeals in other cases, even though there is a common order passed by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the Revenue while conceding that he is not in a position to find fault with the reasoning given by the Tribunal in deleting the additions made by the Assessees (sic--AO), submitted that these appeals be decided on merits in the light of the findings recorded by the AO and decision of the apex Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT, 1995 125 CTR 124.