TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed. The issue is required to be answered in favour of the assessee - D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 211/2005 - - - Dated:- 23-11-2016 - K. S. Jhaveri And Mahendra Maheshwari, JJ. For the Appellant : T. C. Jain For the Respondent : Anuroop Singhi JUDGMENT K. S. Jhaveri , J. 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant M/s. Harish Clays is a partnership firm having its place of business presently at Golecha Gardens, Agra Road, Jaipur. During the assessment year under reference, the appellant assessee had incurred expenditure ₹ 63,205/- as Commission on sales. Out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of sales commission of ₹ 52,895/- solely for the reason that Smt. Suraiya Rahi did not appear before the Assessing officer, being pardanashin lady, despite evidence on record that Payment was duly made to Smt. Suraiya Rahi and similar payment to her was duly allowed in the earlier years under scrutiny assessments under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act. 4. Counsel for the appellant Mr. Jain has taken us to the order of AO, CIT(A) and Tribunal and mainly contended that in spite of voluminous record available which was produced before this court, the agreement between M/s Harish Clays the appellant and Agent SIR Enterprises right from 1986 and which was revised year to year, the payment was made continuously to the proprietary fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir PAN/GIR number and had also given the cheque number, name of the bank. It was expected on the part of the AO to make proper investigation and reach the shareholders. The AO did nothing except issuing summons which were ultimately returned back with an endorsement not traceable . In our considered view, the AO ought to have found out their details through PAN cards, bank account details or from their bankers so as to reach the share holders since all the relevant material details and particulars were given by the assessee to the AO. In the above circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limine with no order as to co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose of finality in all litigations, including litigation arising out of fiscal statutes, earlier decisions on the same question should not be reopened unless some fresh facts are found in the subsequent year. The Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT observed that where a fundamental aspect permeating through different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and the parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. 5.5 He has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Sudarshan Silks and Sarees vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2008) 300 ITR 205 (SC) held as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nown as a good corporate citizen brings goodwill of the local community, as also with the regulatory agencies and the society at large, thereby creating an atmosphere in which the business can succeed in a greater measure with the aid of such goodwill. Monies spent for bringing drinking water as also for establishing or improving the school meant for the residents of the locality in which the business is situated cannot be regarded as being wholly outside the ambit of the business concerns of the assessee, especially where the undertaking owned by the assessee is one which is to some extent a polluting industry. 5.7 In case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. reported in (2006) 281 ITR 408 (Raj.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs M/S Vidyut Metallics Ltd. Anr reported in (2007) 8 SCC 688 wherein it has been held as under:- So far as the proposition of law is concerned, it is well-settled and needs no further discussion. In taxation-matters, the strict rule of res judicata as envisaged by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has no application. As a general rule, each year's assessment is final only for that year and does not govern later years, because it determines the tax for a particular period. It is, therefore, open to the Revenue/Taxing Authority to consider the position of the assessee every year for the purpose of determining and computing the liability to pay tax or octroi on that basis in subsequent years. A decision taken by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
