TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioners' Revision Application dated 7th August, 2014 filed in respect of an Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 201112. 3. Briefly, the facts leading to this petition are as under :- (a) Since Assessment Year 200506, the petitioners in its status as Association of Persons (AOP) has been filing its Returns of Income. However, the tax payable on the income earned by the AOP was allocated amongst the various members of the AOP (incidentally who are also the co-owners of the property) and accepted by the Revenue. On 2nd October, 2012, the petitioners e-filed its Return for the Assessment Year in its status as AOP for the Assessment Year 2011-12. In its Return of Income as wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the AOP were indeterminate. Therefore, the assessment has to be made in the hands of the AOP in terms of Section 167B of the Act. Further, the contention of the petitioners that from the A.Y. 200506 onwards, the Income Tax Department has accepted that the income of the AOP has to be allocated amongst its individual members, who would be subjected to the tax under the Act was negatived by holding that the principle of res judicata would not apply to tax proceedings. 4. Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in support of the petition submits that the impugned order is a nonspeaking order inasmuch as it ignores the evidence led before him that the shares of the members of the AOP were determinate amongst its present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....43(1) of the Act would hold the field and the petitioners are bound by it. 6. We find that the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income completely ignores the past practice accepted by the Revenue in orders passed under Section 143(3) of the Act taxing the income of the AOP on allocation in the hands of its individual members. Nothing is indicated in the impugned order to show that there has been any change either in facts or in law, which would warrant taking a different view from that taken by the Assessing Officer from the A.Y. 2005-06 onwards. Although the principle of res judicata may not specifically apply, yet where a fundamental aspect running through various Assessment Years is subject of consideration then as held by the Apex....