Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 v. Mona Advertising & Marketing Pvt:ltd

$~*18. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 434/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 Appellant Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior StandingCounsel, Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior StandingCounsel with Mr Shikhar Garg, Advocate. versus MONA ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT:ltd. Respondent Through: Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate. 19. + WITH ITA 435/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 AppellantThrough: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior StandingCounsel, Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior StandingCounsel with Mr Shikhar Garg, Advocate. versus MONA ADVERTISING.& MARKETINGPVT.LTD. Respondent Through: Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate. 20.+ WITH ITA 436/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 Appellant Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedBy:AMULYA ITA 434/2015 and connected matters 2h 22.+ Counsel, Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior StandingCounsel with Mr Shikhar Garg, Advocate. versus MONA ADVERTISING & MARKETINGPVT.LTD. Respondent Through: Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate. WITH ITA 437/2015COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 AppellantThrough: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior StandingCounsel, Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior StandingCounsel with Mr Shikhar Garg, Advocate. versus MONA ADVERTISING & MARKETINGPVT. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate. WITH ITA 438/2015COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 AppellantThrough: Mr Kamal Sawhney,' Senior StandingCounsel, Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior StandingCounsel with Mr Shikhar Garg, Advocate. versus MONA ADVERTISING & MARKETINGPVT. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate. WITH 23. + ITA 439/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 AppellantThrough: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior StandingCounsel, Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior StandingCounsel with Mr Shikhar Garg, Advocate. . versus MONA ADVERTISING AND MARKETINGPVT. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate. AND 24. + ITA 440/2015 PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 OF INCOME TAX -6 INCOME TAX -6 TAX -6 -6 AppellantThrough: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior StandingCounsel, Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior StandingCounsel with Mr Shikhar Garg, Advocate. versus MONA ADVERTISING & MARKETINGPVT. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARMR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUORDER%12.10.2015 1. These are appeals by the Revenue directed against a common order dated 29th October 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).On 26th August 2015, this Court passed an order, the operative portion ofwhich reads as under: "2. Learned counsel for the Assessee has in a tabular form, set out thedetails of the appeals of the Revenue in this batch with reference tothe corresponding Assessment Year (AY) and appeal before theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). It reads thus: 3. It is pointed out by Mr C.S. Aggarwal, learned Senior counselappearing for the Assessee, that as is evident from the above table, theappeals of the Revenue challenging the order of the ITAT for the AYscorresponding to the Appeals of the Revenue before the ITAT, haveeither not been filed or in any event have not been listed. If there areany such appeals filed by the Revenue corresponding to the order ofthe ITAT in the Revenue's appeals before it then it would be theresponsibility of the Revenue to ensure that such appeals arenumbered and listed before the Court by the next date. 4. List on 12th October, 2015." 2. Today the Court finds that the appeals if any filed by the Revenue against the common order of the ITAT in the appeals filed by the Revenue beforethe ITAT are not listed before the Court with the present batch of appeals. 4. List on 12th October, 2015." 2. Today the Court finds that the appeals if any filed by the Revenue against the common order of the ITAT in the appeals filed by the Revenue beforethe ITAT are not listed before the Court with the present batch of appeals. 3. Mr Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue,states that on checking the records, it appears that due to some "error", thepresent appeals have been filed only against the common order of the ITATin the appeals of the Assessee before the ITAT and not against the samecommon order of the ITAT in the appeals of the Revenue. In other words,against the order of the ITAT in the following appeals of the Revenue beforethe ITAT, no appeals of the Revenue as of date have been numbered andlisted before the Court: 4. The further 'error' in the present appeals, which the Court has noticed, andwhich has not been disputed by Mr. Sawhney, is that the two questionsprojected by the Revenue do not arise for consideration in these appeals,which are against the order of the ITAT in the appeals before it of the Assessee. The first question pertains to Section 153 A, which was admittedlygiven up by the Assessee before the ITAT. The second question pertains tothe additions under Section 68 of the Act, which do not arise from the orderof the ITAT in the Assessee's appeals. If at all, that is a question that arisesfrom the ITAT's order in the Revenue's appeals before it. 5. In that view of the matter, these appeals are dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J OCTOBER 12, 2015MK VIBHU BAKHRU, J