9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration then as held by the Apex Court in Radhasoami Satsang Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court ], the same approach be adopted in the absence of change in facts and law. Further, in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2006 (3) TMI 1 - Supreme court] the Apex Court held that though the principle of res judicata would not apply to tax matters as cause of action for each assessment year is different / distinct, yet in case there is no change in the factual position or the law, the views expressed in one year are binding for the subsequent years. This on the principle of consistency. Therefore, if the impugned order wants to depart from the consistent view taken earlier, it must so justify. Moreo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iation of Persons (AOP) has been filing its Returns of Income. However, the tax payable on the income earned by the AOP was allocated amongst the various members of the AOP (incidentally who are also the co-owners of the property) and accepted by the Revenue. On 2nd October, 2012, the petitioners e-filed its Return for the Assessment Year in its status as AOP for the Assessment Year 2011-12. In its Return of Income as was the accepted practice, the petitioners declared its total income at ₹ 33.23 lakhs and indicated that no tax was payable by it. This was in line with the past practice of the income being allocated amongst its members for discharge of tax by them individually. (b) On 7th August, 2014, an Intimation under Section 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s individual members, who would be subjected to the tax under the Act was negatived by holding that the principle of res judicata would not apply to tax proceedings. 4. Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in support of the petition submits that the impugned order is a nonspeaking order inasmuch as it ignores the evidence led before him that the shares of the members of the AOP were determinate amongst its present members since Assessment Year 2006-07 as was evident from the assessment order dated 5th May, 2007. It is next submitted that even the evidence led in the orders passed by the Assessing Officer for earlier assessment years under Section 143(3) of the Act consistently accepting the position that tax wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he hands of its individual members. Nothing is indicated in the impugned order to show that there has been any change either in facts or in law, which would warrant taking a different view from that taken by the Assessing Officer from the A.Y. 2005-06 onwards. Although the principle of res judicata may not specifically apply, yet where a fundamental aspect running through various Assessment Years is subject of consideration then as held by the Apex Court in Radhasoami Satsang Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1992, SC 377, the same approach be adopted in the absence of change in facts and law. Further, in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Union of India 288 ITR 273 the Apex Court held that though the principle of res judicata would not apply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
