Consistency in tax litigation bars a Revenue appeal where no factual or legal distinction from an accepted order is shown.

In a Revenue appeal under section 260A, the HC held that no substantial question of law arose where the Tribunal had followed its own earlier order in the assessee's case on identical facts and the Revenue showed no material distinction in fact or law. The Court emphasised that, although res judicata does not strictly apply in tax matters, the principles of consistency and certainty require a justifying change before reopening an accepted position. As no distinguishing feature or legal development was demonstrated, the challenge was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 gave rise to any substantial question of law when the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal by following its earlier order on identical facts for a subsequent assessment year, and no distinction in facts or law was shown.

Analysis: The appeal was founded on an order of the Tribunal which merely followed an earlier order passed in the assessee's own case on identical issues, and the earlier order had been accepted by the Revenue. The Court held that, although res judicata does not strictly apply in tax proceedings, the principles of consistency and certainty of law require the Revenue to show some material distinction in facts or law before challenging a subsequent order based on an accepted earlier decision. Section 260A(4) permits the respondent to contest at final hearing whether the admitted question is ly a substantial question of law, and the Court may itself decline interference if no such question survives. As no distinguishing feature, legal change, or cogent justification was shown, the appeal could not be maintained.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the Revenue's challenge was not entertainable.

---