TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs 2000-01 and 2001-02. A coordinate Bench of this Court on 23.03.2009 had admitted the appeals on the following substantial questions of law: 1. "Whether the deletion of interest payment amounting to Rs.20,67,959.00 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is proper and justified especially when the conditions as stipulated u/s 40A(2) (a) of the Income Tax Act for dis-allowance of such interest are present in the case. 2. Whether the deletion of interest payment by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified on the ground that the same has been allowed in the earlier years and more so when it is well settled that principles of res judicata and estoppal are not applicable under Income Tax Act." The brief facts of the case are tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... res-judicata is not applicable as per the ratio laid down in the case of J. K. Oil Mills v. CIT; 105 ITR 53 Allahabad. According to him, principle of estoppal/res-judicata is not applicable in the income tax matters as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Brij Lal Lohiya; 84 ITR 273 SC. Lastly, he made a request to set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and restored the order passed by the lower income tax authority. On the other hand, Sri K.R. Rastogi, holding brief of Sri S. K. Garg, learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. We have heard both the parties at length and gone through the material available on record. From the record, it appears that in the earl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year, as per the ratio laid down in the case of Radha Swami Satsang v. CIT; 193 ITR 321 SC. Similar views were expressed in the case of Sardar Kehar Singh v. CIT; 195 ITR 769 Rajasthan. In other words, the principle of res-judicata is not strictly applicable in income tax matters. The finding in earlier years on the same facts are relevant for the subsequent assessment year as per the ratio laid down in the case of Taraben Ram Bhai Patel v. ITO; 215 ITR 323 Gujrat as well as in the case of Dhansiram Agarwal v. CIT; 217 ITR 4 Guwahati. In the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. In view of above, it is evident that the facts of the earlier years are relevant for the assessment year under consideration. Further, it may be mentioned that the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Sahu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 352 ITR 8 (All) (sister concern) is not applicable in the instant case. In that case, the loan....