2011 (7) TMI 809 - HC - Income Tax

Consolidation of Appeals: Separate for Each Year and Assessee

Director, Income-tax (International Taxation) Versus Transocean Offshore International Ventures Ltd. & Transocean Discoverer 534 LIC & Triton Holding Ltd. & R and B Falcon (A) Pty. Ltd.

The court addressed the consolidation of appeals against common orders arising from multiple assessment orders for different employees. It emphasized the ... Consolidated appeal before tribunal against common order - held that, in India, there is no specific provision for consolidation of suits, but since the Code is silent on the point, the inherent jurisdiction of the court to pass an order of consolidation has not been taken awayOne appeal, according to us, is maintainable against a common judgment, but, how-ever, the appellant would be required to pay court fees as is payable in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Court Fees Act in respect of each appeal, which stands consolidated by the common judgment against which an appeal has been preferred - Appeal is disposed of Issues:Consolidation of appeals against common orders, maintainability of appeals, payment of court fees for each appeal.Analysis:1. The judgment dealt with the issue of consolidation of appeals against common orders arising from multiple assessment orders for different employees of the assessees for the assessment year 2006-07. The court discussed the practice followed in the Calcutta High Court and held that although one appeal may be filed for convenience, it must relate to each individual case or appeal, even if decided by a common judgment. The court emphasized that consolidated appeals represent different causes of action, requiring separate appeals for each assessment year and assessee, with court fees payable for each appeal.2. The judgment referred to a case from Lahore where two widows had separate suits disposed of by a single judgment. The court held that the determining factor for appeal maintainability is the decision on the matter in controversy, not the decree. It highlighted the court's inherent jurisdiction to consolidate suits or appeals, even if not formally ordered, to avoid preventing the hearing of an appeal against a judgment delivered in a consolidated suit.3. The judgment cited cases where multiple appeals were disposed of by a common order, leading to appeals being filed before the Supreme Court. The court held that if appeals are consolidated at the appellate stage and disposed of by a common judgment, one appeal is maintainable against that judgment. However, court fees must be paid for each appeal consolidated by the common judgment.4. Ultimately, the court held that the appeals in question were maintainable, but directed the appellant to pay court fees for each of the orders of the Tribunal affecting each assessment order within three months. The objection to the maintainability of the appeals was thus disposed of, emphasizing the requirement for payment of court fees for each appeal consolidated by a common judgment.