Doctrine of merger does not bar a separately filed statutory appeal when connected appeals were not heard together.

Where two statutory appeals are separately filed by different parties from the same appellate order, the Tribunal's failure to club them does not extinguish either pending appeal. The doctrine of merger cannot be invoked to bar one party's appeal merely because the other appeal was dismissed, since each party retains an independent appellate remedy against the same order. The proper course is to hear connected appeals together and dispose of them by a common judgment, so that no party suffers from the Tribunal's procedural lapse. The High Court's view was set aside and the matter was remitted for common rehearing of both appeals.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the doctrine of merger applied so as to bar the Commissioner's separate appeal after dismissal of the assessee's appeal; (ii) whether the connected appeals ought to have been heard and decided together.

Issue (i): Whether the doctrine of merger applied so as to bar the Commissioner's separate appeal after dismissal of the assessee's appeal.

Analysis: Both the assessee and the Commissioner had independent statutory rights of appeal against the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner. Two separate appeals were in fact filed. The Tribunal's mistake in not clubbing them together could not deprive either party of its appellate remedy. In such a situation, the doctrine of merger was inapplicable and the dismissal of one appeal did not eliminate the pending appeal of the other party.

Conclusion: The doctrine of merger did not apply, and the Commissioner's appeal could not be rejected on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the connected appeals ought to have been heard and decided together.

Analysis: Since both appeals arose from the same appellate decision and the parties were before the Tribunal at the same time, the proper course was to hear them together and dispose of them by a common judgment. No party should suffer because of the Tribunal's procedural lapse in failing to club the matters.

Conclusion: The connected appeals should have been heard together.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's view was set aside, the Tribunal's separate orders were also set aside by consent, and the matter was remitted for a common rehearing of both appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two statutory appeals from the same order are separately filed by different parties, the failure of the Tribunal to hear them together does not extinguish either appeal, and the doctrine of merger cannot be used to defeat the pending appellate remedy of the other party.

---