9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THE RESPONDENT COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of these appeals, the appellantassessee has challenged the order dated 06.10.2003 passed in ITA No.252/Ahd/2000 and order dated 18.05.2004 passed in ITA No.791/Ahd/2003 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [for short the Tribunal ], whereby the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. The facts of these two cases are identical, therefore, we discuss only the facts of Tax Appeal No.20 of 2004 for convenience. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee had filed its return of income on 31.08.1994 for the assessment year 1994-95, showing a loss of ₹ 25,290/. The Assessing Officer after scrutiny passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chemical Limited. The assessee filed a return of income on 31.08.1993 for the assessment year 199394, showing a loss of ₹ 4,76,271/. Thereafter, on 16.09.1993 a revised return of income was filed in which the total income declared was 48,799/. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. On 19th October, 1994, the Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and determined the total income of the assessee at ₹ 6,19,635/. 2.1. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The CIT(A) partly allowed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sridev Enterprises, reported in 1992 ITR 165 . 4.3. He also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. reported in 358 ITR 295. 5. As against this, Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the argument of learned advocate for the appellant and contended that under the Income Tax Act, each year is an independent year and the earlier assessment which is accepted cannot be treated as rejudicata. 5.1. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntradictory finding; it will not be equitable to permit the Revenue to take a different stand now in respect of the amounts which were the subject matter of previous years assessments; consistency and definiteness of approach by the Revenue is necessary in the matter of recognising the nature of an account maintained by the assessee so that the basis of a concluded assessment would not be ignored without actually reopening the assessment. The principle is similar to the case where it has been held that a debt which had been treated by the Revenue as a good debt in a particular year cannot be subsequently be held by it to have become bad prior to that year. 7. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
