9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 2. Three companies, M/s Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd., M/s R.K.K.R. Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s R.K.K.R. International Pvt. Ltd. purchased property bearing No. 12, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi by a sale deed dated July 22,1972 for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-. It was then let out to two directors of these companies at Rs. 22,500/- per month. 3. When the question of valuing the property came up before the Wealth Tax Officer, for the relevant assessment year 1985-86, he was of the view that it should be valued at Rs. 7,50,00,000/-. Since the assessee was 1/3rd owner of the property, its net wealth was valued at Rs. 2,50,00,000/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved, all three companies filed appeals before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeal) (for short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... WTA No.4/99 filed against order of ITAT dated 1st January 1999 [following order dated 4th May 1998 ] No appeal against ITAT order of 4th May 1998 No appeal against ITAT order of 4th May 1998 1986-87 No appeal against ITAT order of 18th May 1998 No appeal against ITAT order of 4th May 1998 No appeal against ITAT order of 4th May 1998 1987-88 No appeal against ITAT order of 18th May 1998 No appeal against ITAT order of 4th May 1998 No appeal against ITAT order of 4th May 1998 1988-89 No appeal against ITAT order of 18th May 1998 No appeal against ITAT order of 4th May 1998 No appeal against ITAT order of 4t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1994-95 WTA No. 11/03 against order of ITAT dated 19th December 2002 [following orders dated 4th and 18th May 1998 ] No information No information 1995-96 WTA No. 10/03 filed against order of ITAT dated 19th December 2002 [following orders dated 4th and 18th May 1998 ] WTA No. 6/04 filed against order of ITAT dated 10th December 2002 [following orders dated 4th and 4th May 1998 ] No information 1996-97 WTA No. 5/04 filed against order of ITAT dated 17th September 2003 [following orders dated 4th May 1998 ] No information No information 1998-99 WTA No. 16/04 filed against order of ITAT dated 22nd April, 2004 [foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was held that (page 220) : ''It is not open to the Revenue to accept that judgment in the case of the assessee in that case and challenge its correctness in the case of other assessees without just cause. For this reason, we decline to consider the correctness of the decision of he High Court in this matter and dismiss the civil appeal.'' 10. The same Bench reiterated its view in respect of an identical matter in Union of India vs. Satish Panalal Shah, [2001] 249 ITR 221. 11. In Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT, (2004) 266 ITR 99, the Supreme Court noted the decision in Kaumudini Narayan Dalal [2001] 249 ITR 219 (SC) and also referred to CIT vs. Narender Doshi, [2002] 254 ITR 606 and CIT vs. Shiv Sagar Est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., [2000] 245 ITR 492 held that even though the doctrine of res judicata would not apply to income-tax proceedings, but where an issue has been considered and decided consistently in a number of earlier assessment years in a particular manner, then for the sake of consistency, the same view should continue to prevail in subsequent years unless there is some material change in the facts. 14. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and also by a Division Bench of this Court, we have no reason to discard the principle of consistency which requires that when the Revenue has accepted a particular view by not filing an appeal, that view should be adhered to unless there is just cause for departure. 15. In so far as the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
