TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome which has been accepted by the predecessor AO in the preceding year. As AO rejected the explanation of the assessee by saying that the principle of resjudicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. No doubt the principle of res-judicata does not apply to tax proceedings but this rule is subject to the expectation of consistency where there are no fresh facts as held in several judgements including the judgment of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [ 1971 (8) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT] AO has overlooked the rule of consistency despite there being no fresh facts. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the argument advanced by the Ld. DR. Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- The investments were out of assessee s own funds and no bor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 14,26,44,143/- made disallowing depreciation on the ground that the investment made by the assessee in Wing Turbine Generation (WTG) cannot be equated with activities in the nature of trade or business or adventure. (ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the reason given by the AO for making the disallowance of depreciation as the CIT(A) has allowed the relief on the ground that the assets have been put to use for the purpose of assessee s business, which was not the ground taken by the AO for making the disallowance. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance to Rs. 14,26,414/- as against Rs. 23,80,59,197/- mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business. The Ld. CIT(A) did not consider this aspect while allowing relief to the assessee. On the issue of disallowance under section 14A the Ld. DR submitted that it is a covered matter in favour of the assessee. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that both the issues are covered by the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for AY 2010-11, the immediately preceding year. He further submitted that the Revenue filed appeal before the Hon ble Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 19th February, 2021 of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1267/Del/2015 for AY 2010-11 involving both the identical disallowances made by the Ld. AO which were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) as also by the Tribunal. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 22nd Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No doubt the principle of res-judicata does not apply to tax proceedings but this rule is subject to the expectation of consistency where there are no fresh facts as held in several judgements including the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC). The Ld. AO has overlooked the rule of consistency despite there being no fresh facts. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the argument advanced by the Ld. DR as all the relevant facts were already on records for perusal and consideration of the Ld. CIT(A). 8. We find that similar disallowance under section 32 and under section 14A of the Act were made by the Ld. AO in AY 2010-11 which were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) whose order was upheld by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and were put to use for the purposes of its business during the year. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the detailed findings of the CIT(A). Hence, Ground No. 2 is dismissed. As regards Ground No.3, the assessee had borrowed funds which was used for business purposes and was paying interest on these funds and this fact was not controverted through any of the documents on the record by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Revenue at the time of hearing before us, Hence, the findings given by the CIT(A) is proper and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Ground No. 3 is dismissed. 9. When the Revenue went up in appeal before the Hon ble Delhi High Court, the Hon ble Court vide judgment dated 22.09.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estimation of a proportionate figure... 6. Further, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] deleted the additions under Section 32 based on documents which were duly submitted to the AO as well as CIT(A). The CIT (A) duly considered the documents on record and after the verification of the evidence, rightly deleted the addition. The IT AT has even recorded that the details were submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as per the reply/submissions dated 11th December, 2012 which is mentioned at page 1 of the assessment order itself. The ITAT has also recorded that there was no new evidence brought on record by the assessee and in fact, the AO has totally ignored the reply dated 11th December, 2012, fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
