TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action of the Ld. CIT(A) got dismissed and the Tribunal was pleased to uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) thereby allowing the claim of the assessee - This view of the Tribunal has been followed in assessee's own case by the coordinate bench for AY 2012-13 also. Even though res judicata is not applicable for income tax proceeding, however, rule of consistency as a principle has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT ( 1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT ), wherein theas held that if the facts permeating in the earlier years are the same and there is no change in facts and law, then the view taken earlier should not be disturbed by applying the principle of rule of consistency. This view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. AR drew our attention to the respective assessment orders passed by AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act placed in the paper book which relates to AY 2004-05 to 2008-09. However, the AO in AY 2009-10, disallowed the claim by holding the expenditure as Capital in nature. The Ld. CIT(A) reversed the action of AO and allowed the claim of assessee. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal was pleased to uphold the action of Ld. CIT(A) wherein he applied the principle of consistency since there was no change in facts or law permeating in all the previous assessment years, by order dated 03.07.2015 in ITA No. 12/Kol/2013 in ACIT Vs. M/s. Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels Ltd., wherein the Tribunal held as under: 3. We have heard the rival submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Y 2012-13 by order dated 29.01.2020 a copy of which is placed at pages 5 to 8 of the paper book. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, he pleads that since there is no change in facts or law, the view of the Tribunal in assessee's own case on identical facts and circumstances should be followed and allow the assessee's appeal. 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and does not want me to interfere. However, on a pointed question from the bench to the Ld. DR as to whether there was any change in facts or law which could have allowed me to take a different view, the Ld. DR fairly conceded that there is no change in facts or law in this assessment year vis-a-vis previous assessment years. 6. Heard r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
