TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (2) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 8,00,000/-. It was then let out to two directors of these companies at Rs. 22,500/- per month. 3.When the question of valuing the property came up before the Wealth Tax Officer, for the relevant assessment year 1985-86, he was of the view that it should be valued at Rs. 7,50,00,000/-. Since the assessee was 1/3rd owner of the property, its net wealth was valued at Rs. 2,50,00,000/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved, all three companies filed appeals before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeal) (for short CWT (Appeals)) who was of the view that the value of the property should be calculated on the basis of its annual letting value worked out in the income tax assessment. 5. The Revenue challenged the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1987-88 No appeal against ITAT order of 18th May 1998 No appeal against ITAT order of 4th May 1998 No appeal against ITAT order of 4th May 1998 1988-89 No appeal against ITAT order of 18th May 1998 No appeal against ITAT order of 4th May 1998 No appeal against ITAT order of 4th May 1998 1989-90 No appeal against ITAT order of 18th May 1998 No appeal against ITAT order of 4th May 1998 No appeal against ITAT order of 4th May 1998 1990-91 WTA No. 7/02 filed against order of ITAT dated 3rd April 2001 [following order dated 4th May 1998] WTA No. 6/02 against order of ITAT dated 12th May 2000 [following order dated 4th May 1998] WTA No. 8/02 filed against order of ITAT dated 12th May 2000 [following order dated 4th May 1998] 1991....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1999-2000 No information WTA No. 27/04 filed against order of ITAT dated 5th May, 2004 [following order dated 4th May 1998] No information 2000-2001 WTA No. 7/05 filed against order of ITAT dated 5th May, 2004 [following order dated 4th May 1998] No information No information 8. A perusal of the above chart clearly shows that the basic orders in all these appeals are the orders of the ITAT dated 4th May 1998 and 18th May 1998. These two basic orders have merely been followed by the ITAT while deciding all subsequent appeals. The Revenue has accepted the correctness of these two basic orders and has not filed any appeal against them; it has only challenged subsequent orders, which follow these two orders. To say the least, this is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccepted it in the case of one assessee, then it is not open to the Revenue to challenge its correctness in the case of other assessees, without just cause.'' 12. Earlier, in Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT, [1992] 193 ITR 321, the Supreme Court noted that the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, since each assessment year is a unit by itself. But, at the same time, where there is a fundamental aspect permeating through different assessment years and the authorities have allowed that position to be sustained, it would not be appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. In arriving at this conclusion, the Supreme Court referred to a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in T. M. M. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the present assessee but in respect of the other two owners of the concerned property. For some reason, an appeal was filed in respect of the present assessee for the assessment year 1985-86 but no such appeal was filed in respect of the other two assessees for that year. For the earlier assessment year, that is, 1984-85 and for subsequent years, that is, 1986-87 to 1989-90, no appeal was filed by the Revenue in respect of any of the assessees. Similarly, there appears to be no information with regard to any appeal having been filed by the Revenue for a couple of other assessment years in respect of all the three assessees. In cases where an appeal has been filed by the Revenue, it is on an absolutely ad hoc basis and without any intellig....