M/s. Cargill Incorporated Vs. ADIT (ITAT Delhi)
There is no dispute between the parties on the issue that the addition involved in assessment year 2009-10 to assessment year 2014- 15 is same as involved in assessment year 2002-03 to 2008-09 before us. The fact that no appeal has been filed against the order of the Ld. CIT-(A) in assessment year 2009-10 to 2014-15, is also not disputed by the Ld. CIT(DR). The issue before us is that following the Rule of Consistency, whether the Revenue should still object these grounds of the assessee. On this issue, we take guidance from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RADHASOAMI SATSANG vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX reported in 193 ITR 321. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under:
“9. We are aware of the fact that, strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to IT 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.
One these reasonings, in the absence of any material change justifying the Revenue to take a different view of the matter— and, if there was no change, it was in support of the assessee— we do not think the question should have been reopened and contrary to what had been decided by the CIT in the earlier proceedings, a different and contradictory stand should have been taken. We are, therefore, of the view that these appeals should be allowed and the question should be answered in the affirmative, namely, that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income derived by the Radhasoami Satsang was entitled to exemption under ss. 11 and 12 of the IT Act of 1961.”
(Emphasis supplied by us)
We find that Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that once the parties have allowed the position to sustain by not challenging the order, it is not appropriate to allow the position to be changed in subsequent years. In our opinion same applies to the earlier years also. Since issue in dispute involved in grounds mentioned above in assessment year 2002-03 to assessment year 2008-09 is identical to issue decided by the Ld. CIT-(A) in assessment year 2009-10 to assessment year 2014-15, accordingly, the objections of the Revenue are rejected and we allow the grounds raised by the assessee as listed above.
