TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Tribunal") allowing the revenue's appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). 2. The assessment year in question is 1986-87. 3. The issue involved is in regard to the expenditure, namely, power and fuel and lease rent for machines taken on hire, which the Tribunal held it to be part of the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee in connection with the establishment of the cement manufacturing unit at Bilaspur. The Tribunal held that it was not justified for the CIT(A) in treating the same as revenue expenditure. 4. By an order dated 18 June, 2007, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court admitted this appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heads, as claimed by the assessee, that it be allowed as revenue expenditure, the CIT(A), accepted the assessee's contention and considering the position in law, held that the pre-operative expenses relating to the expansion of the cement unit are allowable as a revenue expenditure. 7. The order passed by the CIT(A) was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal, as also there was a cross appeal filed by the assessee on some other issues not relevant in the present context. The Tribunal by the impugned common order dated 10 February, 2005 reversed the order passed by the CIT(A) and held that the expenses, namely, "power and fuel" and "lease rent for machines" taken on hire by the assessee are required to be treated as part of the capi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings had also reached this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City IV vs. M/s. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. for AY 1985-86 (ITXA No. 266 of 2001) being assessee's affiliate company. Such appeal of the Revenue came to be rejected by this Court on 11 December, 2007. It is submitted that this was the scenario even for the subsequent AY 1990-91 (ITXA No. 189 of 2011-Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd.), AY 1994-95 (ITXA No. 1357 of 2009-Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd.) and AY 1997-98 (ITXA No. 1324 of 2010-Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd.). It is, therefore, submitted that the substantial question of law in the present appeal is covered by such orders passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue had preferred Income Tax Appeal No. 960/2000 in respect of the Order arising from the appeal filed by the assessee for the Assessment year 1985-86. That appeal was dismissed by order dated 21.6.2005. 2. Revenue had also preferred an appeal for the assessment year 1985-86. Tribunal noted that considering the orders in favour of the assessee for the earlier assessment years, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed the same by order dated 13.12.2000. This appeal is preferred in respect of the said order. 3. Considering that the subject matter is the same and as the appeal by the Revenue against the order in favour of the assesse has been dismissed, nothing survives in this appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regards question (b) the Tribunal has relied upon its order in the case of the assessee for Assessment year 1996-97 which in turn relies upon an order for AY 1990-91. That order in turn relied upon the order of the Tribunal for Assessment year 1985-86 which had been confirmed by this Court, treating pre-operative expenses as revenue expenditure. The order passed by the Assessing Officer notes in paragraph 9.1 that the pre-operative expenses related to the following items viz. salary and wages, staff welfare expenses, power, travelling, legal and professional fees and miscellaneous expenses. Evidently these are of a revenue nature. For all these reasons question (b) will not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal is accordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. 17. On these reasonings in the absence of any material change justifying the Revenue to take a different view of the matter-and if there was not change it was in support of the assessee- we do not think the question should have been reopened ....