Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (9) TMI 1211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 respectively on the following questions : 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that provision of Rs. 2,19,68,919/- towards unidentified motor third party claim is an ascertained liablity to be deducted while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting a sum of Rs. 4,53,25,000/- made by the assessing officer under section 14A read with 8D of the Income Tax Rule 1962 ? It is submitted by Mrs.Chatterjee, learned advocate for the revenue that the second question is c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. Assessments are certainly quasi-judicial and these observations equally apply. We are aware of the fact that, strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and 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." Further, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Smt.Sarita Aggarwal & Anr : (2001) 167 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the case of the assessee in that case and challenge its correctness in the case of other assessees without just cause. For this reason, we decline to consider the correctness of the decision of the High Court in this matter and dismiss the civil appeal." In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Narendra Doshi : (2002)254 ITR 606, the Supreme Court while dismissing the civil appeal had held, inter alia, as under : "The Revenue has not challenged the correctness of the two decisions of the Gujrat High Court. They must, therefore, be bound by the principle laid down therein. Following that principle, the question has, as we find, been rightly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee." Subsequently, the Supreme Court in Berge .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on a coordinate bench which, failing the possibility of availing of either of these gateways, may yet differ with the view expressed and refer the matter to a bench of superior strength or in some cases to a bench of superior jurisdiction." We find the Calcutta High Court while considering whether the principles of res judicata apply to income tax proceedings in CIT v. Hindusthan Motors Ltd. : (1991) 192 ITR 619, inter alia, held as under : "...It is true that there is no res judicata but there must be some substantial ground for one Income-tax Officer to differ from the view taken by another income-tax Officer in an earlier assessment year." The same view was taken in Mukti Properties P.Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax : (2012) 3 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, for the sake of consistency, we allow this ground of appeal of assessee." Since we find that the learned advocate for the appellant/revenue has no instruction whether for the assessment years 1997-98,1998- 99,1999-2000 and 2001-2002 any appeal has been preferred on the same point and since it is well settled that it is not open to the revenue to challenge the correctness of the earlier assessment years without a just cause and as there is no substantial ground before us to differ from the position of law for the earlier assessment years in question, we are of the view that so far as the first question is concerned, it is not a substantial question of law. So far as the second question is concerned, since it is admitted by the learned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates