TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (11) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee and against the revenue. For answering the references in favour of the assessee the High Court relied upon its judgment for two previous assessment years i.e. 1972-73 and 1973-74 in the assessee's case which is reported in Commissioner of Income Tax v. J.K. Charitable Trust (1992 (196) IIR 31). The present dispute relates to several assessment years, i.e. 1972-73 (in respect of an assessment re done under Section 147(1) of the Act) and assessment years 1975-76 to 1982-83. 2. Learned counsel for the revenue appellant submitted that each assessment year is a separate assessment unit and the factual scenario has to be seen. Dispute relates to the question whether the respondent, assessee's trust was hit by the provisions of Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal has been filed. 6. The basic question therefore is whether the revenue can be precluded from filing an appeal even though in respect of some other years involving identical dispute no appeal is filed. 7. For deciding the issue a few decisions of this Court need to be noted. 8. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India (2006 (3) SCC 1) it was noted as follows: "The decisions cited have uniformly held that res judicata does not apply in matters pertaining to tax for different assessment years because res judicata applies to debar courts from entertaining issues on the same cause of action whereas the cause of action for each assessment year is distinct. The courts will generally adopt an earlier pronouncement of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., to overrule it. This overruling would not operate to upset the binding nature of the decision on the parties to an earlier lis in that lis, for whom the principle of res judicata would continue to operate. But in tax cases relating to a subsequent year involving the same issue as an earlier year, the court can differ from the view expressed if the case is distinguishable or per incuriam. The decision in State of U.P. v. Union of India (2003(3) SCC 239) related to the year 1988. Admittedly, the present dispute relates to a subsequent period. Here a coordinate Bench has referred the matter to a larger Bench. This Bench being of superior strength, we can, if we so find, declare that the earlier decision does not represent the law. None of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in some similar matters or the rejection of some SLPs in limine by this Court in some other similar matters by itself, in our view, cannot be held as a bar against the State in filing an SLP or SLPs in other similar matters where it is considered on behalf of the State that non- filing of such SLP or SLPs and pursuing them is likely to seriously jeopardise the interest of the State or public interest." 10. In Government of West Bengal v. Tarun K. Roy [2004(1)SCC 347] reference was made to the judgments in Digambar's case (supra) and State of Bihar v. Ramdeo Yadav (1996(3) SCC 493). It was noted as follows: "28. In the aforementioned situation, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court manifestly erred in refusing to consider the cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic interest is involved in interpretation of law, the Court is entitled to go into the question." 11. In Ramdeo's case (supra) reference was made to Debdas Kumar's case (supra) wherein it was observed at paragraph 5 as follows: "It is then contended that Section 3(2) and (3) make distinction between the employees covered by those provisions and the employees of the aided schools taken over under Section 3(2). Until the taking over by operation of Section 3(4) recommendation is complete, they do not become the employees of the Government under Section 4 of the Act. The Government in exercise of the power under Section 8 constituted a committee and directed to enquire and recommend the feasibility to take over the schools. On the recomm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....where because of the small amount of revenue involved, no appeal is filed. Policy decisions have been taken not to prefer appeal where the revenue involved is below a certain amount. Similarly, where the effect of the decision is revenue neutral there may not be any need for preferring the appeal. All these certainly provide the foundation for making a departure. 17. In C.K. Gangadharan's case (supra) it was held that merely because in some cases revenue has not preferred an appeal that does not operate as a bar for the revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a pronouncement by the higher court when divergent views are expressed by the different High C....