2014 (11) TMI 1081

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessee were dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. The facts of these two cases are identical, therefore, we discuss only the facts of Tax Appeal No.20 of 2004 for convenience. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee had filed its return of income on 31.08.1994 for the assessment year 1994-95, showing a loss of Rs. 25,290/. The Assessing Officer after scrutiny passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) partly allowed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the said appeals. Hence, these app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, 1994, the Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,19,635/. 2.1. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The CIT(A) partly allowed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 27.01.2003 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, this appeal is filed at the instance of assessee. 3. While admitting this appeal on 11.08.2003, the Court had formulated the following question of law:" Whether, on the fact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t this, Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the argument of learned advocate for the appellant and contended that under the Income Tax Act, each year is an independent year and the earlier assessment which is accepted cannot be treated as rejudicata. 5.1. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hotel Savera, reported in 239 ITR 795. He also relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay CityIII, reported in 114 ITR, 645. 6. We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material on record. In our view, the decision of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... concluded assessment would not be ignored without actually reopening the assessment. The principle is similar to the case where it has been held that a debt which had been treated by the Revenue as a good debt in a particular year cannot be subsequently be held by it to have become bad prior to that year." 7. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the issue involved in this appeal is already concluded by the above decision. In the above decision, it has been categorically held that it would not be equitable to permit the revenue to take a different stand subsequently in respect of the amounts which were the subject matter of previous years' assessment. In our view, once the interest is allowed in the previ....