COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. TATA TEA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In each of these two appeals the assessment for respective two previous years were challenged before the Tribunal. But in respect of both the years involved in each of the two appeals the question involved was identical. Therefore, in both these cases the two appeals filed before the Tribunal by the respective assessee for the relevant two years were disposed of by one consolidated order each. Against the respective consolidated order, one appeal each has since been preferred under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before this High Court. 1.1. Now the question arises whether against one consolidated order disposing of several appeals by the learned Tribunal one appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could be maintained? Prevailing practice followed in Calcutta High Court:

(2.) Before introduction of section 260A reference- used to be preferred before the High Court under section 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shyamal Kumar Sen (as Their Lordships the were) were pleased to issue a direction on 3rd February 1992 that against one consolidated order of the Tribunal only one application for reference shall be filed covering all the assessment years involved and no separate application.bhall be filed. This was not a judicial order but an order passed administratively in procedural matters. This was being followed so long before this Court in respect of the reference preferred against a consolidated order. After section 260 A was introduced, the same procedure continued to be followed in appeal under section 260A as well, both by the assessee and by the department. Accordingly in each of these two appeals, one appeal under section 260A has been filed by the department against one consolidated order covering two or more appeals concerning two or more assessment years, as the case may be. Submission on behalf of the appellants:

(3.) When the matter was brought to our notice, we found some difficulties in view of the change in law governing a reference and appeal under sections 256 and 260A respectively, we thought that this is a question, which calls for the Court's attention. Accordingly, -we had requested Mr. Sailen Dutta and Mr. Summit Chakraborty learned counsel appearing in the respective two appeals to address this Court on this point. Mr. Chakraborty and Mr. Dutta both had supported that one appeal is to be filed. But the Court pointed out that though one consolidated order was passed, but it had governed more than one appeal before the learned Tribunal. Each appeal gives rise to a separate cause of action even if the assessee is one. Therefore, even if one appeal is permitted then whether one or more Court fees are to be paid. Both Mr. Dutta and Mr. Chakraborty had submitted that one Court fee is to be paid. Both of them had drawn our attention to the expression used in sections 256 and 260A and had also referred to the direction given by this Court on 3rd February 1992 as well. 3.1. Mr. Chakraborty had cited the decision in Kusum Ansal v. CIT, 190 ITR 24 rendered by a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court to support his contention, which has taken the same view as sought to be propounded by Mr. Chakraborty, however, in connection with reference. He has also relied upon a decision in CTTv. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal &Anr., 210 ITR 464 by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had taken the same view that one application for reference would be maintainable. He had also cited the decision in Union of India & Anr. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 164 ITR 600 again by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Indore Bench which also had taken the same view in relation to reference. 3.2. In this usual fairness Mr. Chakraborty had also referred to the decision in Man & Company v. CIT, 213 ITR 563 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court which had taken the opposite view in such a situation. Mr. Chakraborty has also referred to a decision in Chandra Bhan Gosain v. State of Orissa, 50 ITR 195 by the Supreme Court and contended that even if the consolidated order disposes of assessment for several years by a consolidated order then only one appeal would lie. Submission by amicus curiae: