9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to differ from the position of law for the earlier assessment years in question, we are of the view that so far as the first question is concerned, it is not a substantial question of law. Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- since it is admitted by the learned advocate for the revenue that it stands covered by the order M/S. RR. SEN BROTHERS (P) LTD. [ 2013 (7) TMI 260 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] against the revenue, the said question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. - G.A.No.1926 of 2014, ITAT 77 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 15-9-2014 - The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK For the Appellant : MS.SOMA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE For the Respondent : Mr.N.K.PODDAR, SR.ADV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en preferred from the orders passed by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee for the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2001-02, however, since the principles of res judicata do not apply to revenue proceeding, the first question may be admitted. Mr.Poddar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/assessee relying on the judgements of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India and the Calcutta High Court submits that in view of the several decisions the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. Heard learned advocates for the parties. We find, the Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsange v. Commissioner of Income-tax : (1992) 193 ITR 321 had found, inter alia, as under: This court in Parashuram Pot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ications against those decisions had been moved and had been rejected by the Tribunal. It would appear from a statement made by learned counsel for the Revenue before the Tribunal that in respect of these questions an application under s.256(2) had been moved but counsel for the Revenue cannot tell us what happened thereafter. And the assessee has filed an affidvit to state that it has no information in this behalf. Having regard to the fact that, under these circumstances, the earlier decisions of the Tribunal on the same question remain unchallenged, these appeals and the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed with costs. Again in Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal : (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC) while dismissing the civil appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessees, without just cause. In M/s. Ponds India Ltd. (merged with H.L.Ltd.) v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow : (2008) 8 SCC 369 (SC), the Supreme Court had relied on the judgement in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Anr. V. Union of India Ors.: (2006) 3 SCC wherein it was, inter alia, held as under : The Courts will generally adopt an earlier pronouncement of the law or a conclusion of fact unless there is a new ground urged or a material change in the factual position. The reason why Courts have held parties to the opinion expressed in a decision in one assessment year to the same opinion in a subsequent year is not because of any principle of res judicata but because of the theory of precedent or the precedential value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of res judicata but the question of quasi-judicial discipline which demands that the decision of the superior authority should not be attempted to be upset on identical facts and law on the plea of different assessment years. Therefore, the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal is not sustainable and the judgment of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is restored on file. Thus, we answer the third question in the affirmative. We direct the Assessing Officer in terms of this judgment to do the needful in accordance with law. Thus, the appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs. Therefore, so far as the first question is concerned, we find that the Tribunal while partly allowing the appeal of the assessee on this iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
