9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 - 1091, 1115 and 1098 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2007 - MADAN B. LOKUR and V. B. GUPTA JJ. Sanjeev Sabharwal for the appellant P. N. Monga with Manu Monga for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... those orders were not challenged, there was no justification for the Revenue to file the present appeals which merely relied upon the orders passed on September 23, 2005. 4. It was further pointed out by learned counsel for the assessee that the orders passed on September 23, 2005, followed orders passed by the Tribunal in respect of some other cases decided by the Tribunal on July 14, 2003 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wever, the fact remains that the primary orders dated July 14, 2003 and June 14, 2004, have admittedly not been challenged by the Revenue. These primary orders having been accepted by the Revenue, we see no reason why subsequent orders merely following these primary orders should be challenged by the Revenue by filing appeals in this court. 7. Our attention has been drawn to CIT v. A. R. J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. Reliance was also placed upon Union of India v. Satish Panalal Shah [2001] 249 ITR 221 wherein the Supreme Court had deprecated the practice of the Revenue in accepting the correctness of a particular issue in one case and challenging its correctness in another case. 8. Precisely the same thing has happened in so far as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
