TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 1224
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 39,21,124/- being bogus/non-genuine/inflated fabrication charged in the name of M/s Shakir Zari Arts [Rs. 6,67,195/-] and M/s Ashu Garments [Rs. 32,53,929/-] relying on the last year's order where disallowance was made at Rs. 1,40,84,333/- being @ 2.5% on total Dying & Printing work, Fabrication charges and raw material expenses amounting to Rs. 56,33,73,329/-. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in brushing aside the facts put forth by the AO in the assessment order namely:- a) M/s Shakir Zari Arts neither submitted confirmation called for u/s 133(6) nor assessee produced the proprietor for examination regarding genuineness of job work of Rs. 6,67,195/- b) Statement on oa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been accepted by the Commissioner, to demonstrate correctness of factual elements embedded in his contentions. Learned Departmental Representative placed his reliance on the grounds of appeal before us, justified the stand taken by the revenue authorities for this year and submitted that it is not clear whether the parties in question, in respect of whom the expenses have been disallowed, are the same. He submitted that further factual verifications are necessary before adjudication on the legal aspect as to whether once stand of the CIT(A) on an issue is accepted in one assessment year whether the same issue can be challenged in the subsequent assessment year. Learned counsel for the assessee, in brief rejoinder, made a statement that p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....question cannot be subsequently agitated." One of the decisions referred to by the Full Bench was the case of Hoystead vs. Commissioner of Taxation (1926) AC 155 (PC). Speaking for the Judicial Committee, Lord Shaw stated : "Parties are not permitted to begin fresh litigations because of new views they may entertain of the law of the case, or new versions as to what should be a proper apprehension by the Court of the legal result either of the construction of the documents or the weight of certain circumstances. If this were permitted litigation would have no end, except when legal ingenuity is exhausted. It is a principle of law that this cannot be permitted, and there is abundant authority reiterating that principle. Thirdly, the same....