- (1.) Income Tax Appeal Defective Nos. 296, 299, 302, 303, 306, 310 and 319 of 2005 have been filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Muzaffarnagar against a common order dated 17th February, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in respect of the orders passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", against the Manager, State Bank of India, Hanuman Road, Shamli, district Muzaffarnagar. for the Financial Years 1995-96 to 2001-02 (Assessment Years 1996-97 to 2002-03).
(2.) Income Tax Appeal Defective Nos. 295, 298, 301, 305, 308, 309 and 318 of 2005 have been filed against the common order dated 17th February, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in respect of the orders passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act against the Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Hanuman Road, Shamli, district Muzaffarnagar, relating to the Financial Years 1995-96 to 2001-02(Assessment Years 1996-97 to 2002-03). It may be mentioned here that the Revenue in the memo of appeals have wrongly mentioned Senior Manager, State Bank of India as the respondent in place of Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce.
(3.) All the appeals have been admitted on the following substantial question of law. "Whether the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in holding that the property was owned by several co-owners having a definite and ascertainable share in the property, the limit of Rs.1,20,000/- would apply to each of the payees/co-owners separately and also holding that the M/s.Atma Ram & Brothers would not constitute an AOP merely on the fact that income accrues jointly to more persons than one, ignoring the fact that section 194 I cast obligation on the payer to deduct TDS from the payee, which in this case is M/s Atma Ram & Brothers and not the members of the AOP and also the fact that the property has not been physically divided in between the five succeeding HUFs";