9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als have been filed by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against an order dated November 11, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench A in I. T. A. Nos. 631-633/Delhi/ 2001 relevant for the assessment years 1991-92, 1997-98 and 1998-99. 2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has merely followed its earlier orders passed on Septemb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sunrise Land & Housing Company Limited). The orders passed in those cases were not challenged by the Revenue. 5. On these facts being brought to our notice, we directed the appellant to file affidavit indicating the correct position. 6. An affidavit dated January 12, 2007 has been filed by Shri Kalyan Chand, Commissioner, Income-tax (Appeals) in which he explains why the orders passed on Septemb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch of this court relying upon Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) held that though the principle of res judicata or estoppel by record does not apply in income-tax proceedings, yet for the sake of consistency and for the purpose of finality in all litigations, including litigation arising out of the fiscal statutes, earlier decisions on the same question should not be reopened unless ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly 14, 2003 and June 14, 2004, but has chosen to challenge the orders passed by the Tribunal in the present appeals which merely follow these primary orders. There is no reason given by the Revenue for this pick and choose attitude or this attitude of a favourable orders in respect of one assessee but not accepting the same favourable order in respect of another assessee, without there being any d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
