2007 (1) TMI 172 - HC - Income Tax

Earlier orders passed by Tribunal were not challenged by the Revenue - Earlier decisions on the same question should not be reopened unless some fresh facts are found in the subsequent year held that if those orders were not challenged there was no justification for the Revenue to file the present appeals which merely relied upon the primary orders passed revenue cannot be allowed to recover tax from one assessee while declining to recover tax from others revenue s appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order for multiple assessment years. Reliance on earlier Tribunal orders. Challenge to the decision based on Supreme Court and High Court judgments. Formulation of substantial question of law. Incorrect averment by Revenue regarding challenge to another case.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to appeals against an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for various assessment years. The Tribunal's decision was based on its earlier orders concerning different entities. These primary orders were accepted by the Revenue and not challenged through an appeal. The High Court, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Satish Panalal Shah and its own judgment in CIT v. A. R. J. Security Printers, dismissed the appeals. The Court also referred to its reasoning in a related case, CIT v. Moonlight Builders and Developers, for the dismissal.

A substantial question of law was formulated by the Court through an ex parte order. The Revenue had raised an argument in one of the grounds of appeal, contending that the Tribunal's decisions were distinguishable and that the order in the case of Moonlight Builders and Developers Limited was under challenge. However, it was found that the averment made by the Revenue was incorrect. The appeal in question was filed before the appeal related to Moonlight Builders and Developers Limited, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on this discrepancy.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeals against the Tribunal's order, citing precedents from the Supreme Court and its own judgments. The Court corrected an incorrect averment made by the Revenue regarding the challenge to another case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on this discrepancy.