TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Order passed by the AO cannot set to be erroneous if the same view that of the earlier years has been accepted by the AO in the year under consideration, thus the Ld. A.O. has applied his mind and came to the correct conclusion. The Ld. PCIT cannot interfere in an issue which has been accepted by the Revenue for number of years. When the facts in the Assessment year are same that of the Earlier Years, then the AO cannot take contrary view to the view taken in the earlier years. As the AO has accepted the accounting method followed by the assessee from year to year, in the relevant Assessment Year, the AO cannot take contrary view. Where facts and law in a subsequent assessment year are the same, no authority whether quasi judicial or judicial can generally be permitted to take a different view. This mandate is subject only to the usual gateways of distinguishing the earlier decision or where the earlier decision is per incuriam. However, these are fetters only 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 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mine the factual aspect ignoring the provisions of Section 145(1) and (2) of the IT Act. The Ld. PCIT further held that the loss to be contingent nature and therefore, disregarded assessee s recognized income or loss percentage computation method (POCM) as prescribed in the accounting standard-(AS)7. Further, the Ld. PCIT cancelled the order of the Assessing Officer and directed the A.O to pass fresh assessment order. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. PCIT, the assessee has field the present appeal on following Grounds:- 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT was not justified assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 even though the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue as order u/s 143(3) was passed after proper verification of facts and there is no case of lack of enquiry. 2. (i) That the claim of loss of Rs. 6,35,58,5581- was on account of revised estimates of total cost and total revenue as per with established principle based on POCM and same having been duly verified and allowed in assessment order u/s 143(3), there is no case of any error so as to justify the revision u/s 263 of the Act. (ii) That the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the questionnaire, since the order of Ld. A.O is non-speaking one, the Ld. PCIT has rightly invoked Section 263 of the Act and remanded the matter with a direction to pass fresh assessment order. Therefore, the Ld. DR submitted that, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) requires no interference and the hands of the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the parties, perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. It is emerging from the record that when the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS, a notice u/s 143(2) was issued and also issued a questionnaire to the assessee. The same is made available by the assessee at Page No. 53 of the paper book which reads as under:- 1. Detailed note on various streams of business 2. Detailed POCM working project was two previous years and subsequent year also. 3. Details of unmoved sundry/trade creditors. 4. Detailed working of capital WIP and inventory along with basis of valuation 5. Details of forfeiture and miscellaneous income. 6. Note on reversal of Development rights. 7. Justify claim of provision of anticipated loss-6,35,58,588/- 8. Details and purpose of transa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-58 of the paper book. Thus the Ld. AO after verifying the materials on record assessed the income of the Assessee for AY 2014-15 at Rs. 12,52,500/-. The Ld. PCIT on going through the records observed that the Assessee has claimed an expenditure of Rs. 6,35,58,558/- towards the anticipated loss charged to P L account. According to the has Ld. PCIT, the said provision made by the assessee which was not crystallized in the year under consideration, therefore the Ld. PCIT was of the opinion that the order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) of the Act was erroneous and so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue since the AO failed to make proper enquiry at the time of passing the assessment order. 10. It is not in dispute that the assessee was following the percentage completion method from year to year for computing the income of the Assessee and there is no change in the method followed by the Assessee in the year under consideration. It if found that the Assessing officer after examining of the entire facts and circumstances of the case accepted the submission of the Assessee and allowed the claim of the Assessee which is based on the same accounting slandered 7 fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to be changed in a subsequent year. 14. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Anr. vs UOI Ors. (2006) 3~SCC 1 while discussing the ambit of the principle of res judicata made the following observations: 20. The decisions cited have uniformly held that res judicata does not apply in matters pertaining to tax for different assessment years because res judicata applies to debar Courts from entertaining issues on the same cause of action whereas the cause of action for each assessment year is distinct. The Courts will generally adopt an earlier pronouncement of the law or a conclusion of fact unless there is a new ground urged or a material change in the factual position. The reason why Courts have held parties to the opinion expressed in a decision in one assessment year to the same opinion in a subsequent year is not because of any principle of res judicata but because of the theory of precedent or the precedential value of the earlier pronouncement. Where facts and law in a subsequent assessment year are the same, no authority whether quasi judicial or judicial can generally be permitted to take a different view. This mandate is subject only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
