9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and content consistency in decisions, every decision making authority should ensure that in a given set of circumstances, their decision must be on same lines as that of their predecessor or co-ordinate authorities in similar set of circumstances. Where a decision making authority finds itself unable to agree with the view earlier taken, by the predecessor or the co-ordinate, the authority concerned is duty bound to record cogent reasons for deviating. Significance of precedence cannot be ignored even in administrative decision making. 1.1 Two sets of identical circumstances pertaining to the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17, but same decision making authority, rendering two decisions inconsistent with each other is what faces us in this writ action. 2. The petitioner, assessed to income tax has approached this court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to quash the notice dated 31.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the order dated 31.07.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Upon service of notice, the respondent revenue entered appearance through counsel and resisted the actio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y held that it is not a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for assessment year 2016-17. 3.7 But soon thereafter, by way of order dated 31.07.2022 for the assessment year 2015-16, respondent no. 1 rejected the case set up by the petitioner, observing that there is escapement of income during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16, and accordingly held that it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for assessment year 2015-16. Accordingly, the impugned notice followed by the impugned order, both dated 31.07.2022 were issued against the petitioner for assessment year 2015-16. 3.8 Hence, the present appeal. 4. During final arguments, learned counsel for petitioner contended that the notice and the order dated 31.07.2022, impugned by way of this writ action are not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was submitted on behalf of petitioner that the above mentioned two contradictory final outcomes pertaining to assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 clearly show not just non-application of mind but even extreme arbitrariness, more so, because the officer serving as the decision making authority of Assistant Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng through insight portal and Form 2B (sales) (VAT) of the M/s Chopra Brothers (Prop. Shri Prem K. Chopra) have been compared. It is found that M/s Chopra Brothers (Prop. Prem K. Chopra) has not made any sales (2B) to M/s Divya International during the financial year 2015-16. The VAT returns filed by M/s Chopra Brothers to VAT department via (2B) clearly show No Sales was made to M/s Divya International, so how could Divya International claim Input Tax Credit for the shown invoices, because that would result in mismatch in VAT filings. Neither there is any purchase shown by the assessee from M/s Divya International in the VAT returns. Also to note is that No Inward/Outward Remittance has been detected in the bank account statements of M/s Chopra Brothers from/to M/s Divya International. So, if, M/s Divya International did not get purchase then in which account did they make the payments to complete the transactions. Thus, it is found that the contention of the assessee is found to be correct". (emphasis in bold as it exists in the actual order) 6.2 Then comes the other order, which is impugned in the present writ action. In the impugned order dated 31.07.2022 under Section 148A( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31.07.2022, while deciding to proceed further under Section 148A of the Act, the same ACIT recorded not even a whiff of analysis, if any, carried out by him of the documentary record and simply reiterated the allegations borne out of the alleged admission of Shri Rajeev Khushwaha. 7. There is no dispute to the legal proposition as submitted by counsel for respondents revenue that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings pertaining to different assessment years since each assessment year is a separate assessment unit in itself if rests in separate factual scenario. 7.1 In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Kanpur vs J.K. Charitable Trust, Kamal Tower, Kanpur, (2009) 1 SCC 196, the basic question framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether the revenue could be precluded from filing an appeal even though in respect of some other years, involving identical disputes, no appeal was filed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after elaborate discussion through multiple judicial precedents arrived at a conclusion that fact situation in all the assessment years was same and dismissed the appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon an earlier de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re must be a material change in the fact situation or law, but before an earlier view can be upset or digressed from, one of the two must be demonstrated namely change in the fact situation or a material change in law whether enacted or declared by the Supreme Court. 8. The issue before us is the consistency (or lack thereof) in the decision making. There was nothing wrong if in the impugned order dated 31.07.2022 the ACIT concerned had taken a view different from the view taken in order dated 28.07.2022, provided the diversion was supported by way of cogent reasoning. As mentioned above, consistency does not mean putting iron fetters on the subsequent decision making; it only means expecting that a deviation from the previous decision in similar set of circumstances is explained by way of cogent and rational reasons. In the present case, the decision taken first in point of time (order dated 28.07.2022) was a reasoned decision, based on the analysis of material on record, but the decision taken subsequently (order dated 31.07.2022) not just took a view completely inconsistent with the previous view but even without an iota of reason. 9. So far as the respondent's argument of two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
