TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has challenged the correctness of CIT(A) s order dated 22nd November, 2011 in the matter of assessment under section 17 read with section 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for the assessment year 2005-06 on the ground that Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in considering the rented premises as exempt u/s. 2(ea)(i)(3) and 2(ea)(i)(5) of the Wealth Tax Act. 2. When this appeal was called out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner s order for the assessment year 2004-05. In response to our query, ld. D.R. could not also point out any specific reason as to why the CIT(A) s order for the assessment year 2004-05 was accepted and the impugned order, which, merely follows this order, is challenged in appeal before us. He, however, submitted that there is no res judicata in tax proceedings and we must adjudicate the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. Their Lordships held that such a differential treatment on the same set of facts was not permissible in law and observed that it is not open to revenue to accept the judgment in the case of one assessee and challenge its correctness in the case of another assessee without just cause . The same were views of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Berger India Ltd. 266 ITR 99 and were also follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee in an assessment year, it cannot be open to the AO to disturb the same by challenging the same issue, which have been allowed to reach finality by filing the appeal in an earlier year, in appeal again. 5. In view of the above discussion and for the short reason that the AO had not challenged the relief granted to the assessee on this very issue by the CIT(A) in the assessment year 2004-05 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
