ITA No.1115 of 2009
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 June 2011
This query is : Resolved
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ITA No.1115 of 2009 with ITA No.1122 of 2009
Reserved On: May 18, 2011.
Pronounced On: June 03, 2011.
ITA No.1115 of 2009
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . Appellant
through : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Anand, Advocate.
VERSUS
SHRI MUKESH LUTHRA . . .Respondent
through: Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocates.
ITA No.1122 of 2009
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . Appellant
through : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Anand, Advocate.
VERSUS
SHRI MUKESH LUTHRA . . .Respondent
through: Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocates.
(ITA No.1122 of 2009 & ITA No.1115 of 2009) So both the case are mergerd or what actually it is as i have seen in criminal cases also that both the no are merged why? Becuase 2 times appleant & respondent has been written.
Thank U.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 08 June 2011
In the above cases, the issue involved may be same. But however, the period (say assessment year etc.) to which the issue relates may be different.
That is why the Commissioner might have preferred appeal for each period separately, as is required by law.
However, since the issue remains the same, and the parties to the litigation being same, the High Court would have thought it fit to hear the matter together instead of wasting time in hearing the matter separately.
When the HC passes an order, though it may be a single order, yet, if any of the parties are not satisfied and want to move the higher forum, then they have to necessarily prefer two petitions based on the SINGLE HC ORDER.
So, it is not merger. It is hearing of the matter together.
PALNITKAR V.V.
(Expert) 08 June 2011
Matters in which similar issues are involved are disposed off by a common judgment. It is a very common practice. In fact it is a healthy practice which helps in reduction of pendency.
