2017 (4) TMI 1468 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of alleged on money in respect of Ratnakar III and Ratnakar IV projects - HELD THAT - As for the point made by the learned Commissioner (DR), whatever may be the approach of the assessee, unless any points of distinction between the facts of the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 are demonstrated to us, we are bound to follow the decision of the coordinate bench for the assessment year 2011-12. Learned Commissioner (DR) fairly accepts that facts of these two assessment years are material similar. On these facts, nothing turns on the inconsistency, even if there be any, in the stand of the assessee. The decision of the coordinate bench for the assessment year 2011-12 binds us. Respectfully following the same, we uphold the grievance of the assessee, and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition on account of alleged on money. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against CIT(A) order for assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2012-13.
Grievance regarding addition of ?42,09,41,720 on account of alleged on money in specific projects.
Consistency in approach between assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the CIT(A) order for the assessment year 2012-13, challenging the addition of ?42,09,41,720 on account of alleged on money in certain projects. The representatives agreed that the issue was similar to a previous year's decision in the assessee's favor. The Commissioner (DR) argued against blindly following the previous decision without demonstrating any factual distinctions between the two assessment years. However, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the earlier decision, stating that unless distinct differences were shown, they were bound to follow the precedent. The Commissioner (DR) acknowledged the material similarity between the two assessment years, leading to the Tribunal upholding the assessee's grievance and directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ?42,09,41,720. Consequently, the assessee received the relief sought.

This judgment highlights the importance of consistency in decision-making and the binding nature of precedents set by the Tribunal. It emphasizes the need for factual distinctions to be presented to warrant a deviation from established rulings. The Tribunal's decision in this case was based on the lack of demonstrated differences between the assessment years, leading to the assessee's appeal being allowed and the addition being deleted.