ITO Vs Ambur Economic Development Organization (ITAT Chennai)
ITAT Chennai held that an AO is not permitted to take different stand on the same issue and same set of facts over different years. Thus, exemption u/s. 11 granted in spite of the fact that return was filed using ITR-6.
Facts- The primary issue challenged by the revenue through this appeal is the grant of relief by the CIT(A) of treating the assesse as eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the ITA in spite of the fact that the return was filed using ITR-6. It has been contested that the doctrine of res judicata do not apply to direct taxes. The revenue has further agitated the issue of grant of depreciation on the premise that assets were bought out of government grants.
Conclusion- Held that material available on records indicate that the assesse has been granted exemption u/s 11 for immediately preceding AY-2014-15 as is evident from order u/s 143(3) dated 28.12.2016. It is alludes that same situation qua filing of ITR-6 and treatment of assesse as a rested entity u/s 12AA existed in the said year as well. The perusal of order further shows that the assesse has been allowed exemption u/s 11. The argument of Ld. CIT(A) recording principle of consistency and applicability of res judicata have been found to be correct. It is trite law that principle of res judicata do not apply to direct tax however the revenue cannot take different positions in different years if there is no change in the material facts.
