Court stresses decision consistency, sets aside notice and order lacking reasoning. Res judicata doctrine discussed.

The court emphasized the importance of consistency in decision-making to avoid arbitrariness. It found the notice and order issued under the Income Tax Act lacked reasoning and were inconsistent with earlier decisions. The court set aside the impugned notice and order, ruling in favor of the petitioner, a senior citizen and business proprietor. The doctrine of res judicata was discussed, highlighting the need for consistency unless there are material changes. The petition was allowed without costs, emphasizing the significance of reasoned decision-making by authorities.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Consistency in decision-making by the same authority.
2. Validity of notice and order under Section 148 and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Application of the doctrine of res judicata in income tax proceedings.

Summary:

1. Consistency in Decision-Making:
The court emphasized the importance of consistency in decision-making by authorities, whether judicial or administrative, to avoid arbitrariness and ensure predictability. It noted that the same decision-making authority rendered inconsistent decisions for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 under similar circumstances, which led to the present writ action.

2. Validity of Notice and Order under Section 148 and 148A(d):
The petitioner, a senior citizen and proprietor of M/s Chopra Brothers, challenged the notice dated 31.07.2022 issued under Section 148 and the order dated 31.07.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner argued that the contradictory outcomes for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 demonstrated non-application of mind and arbitrariness by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT). The court found that the ACIT's order dated 28.07.2022 for the assessment year 2016-17 was reasoned and based on an analysis of the material on record, while the subsequent order dated 31.07.2022 for the assessment year 2015-16 lacked any analysis and merely reiterated allegations.

3. Application of Doctrine of Res Judicata:
The court acknowledged that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings for different assessment years, as each year is a separate unit. However, it emphasized that consistency in decision-making is expected unless there is a material change in the factual situation or law. The court cited precedents where earlier views were upheld unless distinguished by new grounds or material changes.

Conclusion:
The court found that the impugned notice and order dated 31.07.2022 were inconsistent with the earlier order dated 28.07.2022 and lacked cogent reasoning. It set aside the impugned notice and order, allowing the petition. The court noted that the satisfaction recorded in both orders was by the same ACIT, and there was no indication that the latter sanctioning authority was aware of the earlier view. The petition was allowed with no costs.

---