Commissioner of Income Tax vs Realest Builders and Services Ltd.

Learned Counsel for the parties pray that these appeals to be taken on Board today because connected matters have been listed and have been disposed of by this court.

In view of the request of learned Counsel we take these appeals on Board.

The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated September 23, 2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench "G" in I.T.A. Nos. 3135, 629, 4760 and 1456/Del/1999 relevant for the assessment years 1992-93, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1998-99.

We find from the perusal of the impugned order that the Tribunal has relied upon its earlier orders passed on June 14, 2003 (Re : DLF Commercial Project Corporation) and June 14, 2004 (Re : Sunrise Land and Housing Co. Ltd.).

These two primary orders have been accepted by the Revenue and have not been challenged by filing an appeal.

Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Satish Panalal Shah, and this court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.R.J. Security Printers, and for the reasons mentioned by us in I. T. A. Nos. 1091/2006, 1115/2006 and 1098/2006 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Moonlight Builders and Developers, we dismiss these appeals.

We may, however, note by an ex parte order dated May 9, 2006 substantial question of law has been formulated for determination by this court. We also find that the Revenue had made an averment in ground (K) of the appeal/memo as follows:

(K) Because the decision relied upon by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are distinguishable on the facts and in any case the orders of learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Moonlight Builders and Developers Limited is under challenge before this hon''ble court.

The averment is found to be not correct because this appeal was filed by the Revenue on May 6, 2006, while the appeal filed by the Revenue in respect of Moonlight and Developers Limited was filed only in July 2006. Perhaps the Division Bench was misguided by the averment made by the Revenue. Without dwelling further on this issue, we recall the order dated May 9, 2006, and dismiss this appeal.