The assessment for AY 90-91 was reopened on the ground to verify whether the income from warehousing charges should be treated as income from business or income from house property. Ultimately after investigating the case in detail, the Assessing Officer himself arrived at a conclusion that charges on account of warehousing are business receipts and the reassessment was completed accordingly. Now, for these years under consideration the department had taken a different view, which in our considered opinion, is not correct and not acceptable either in the eyes of law or otherwise. There is no change in facts or circumstances. The assessee is doing the same business of warehousing. Similar receipts were received in past. The warehouses were given to different parties. Warehouses were constructed for the purpose of running of business of warehousing. Therefore, in view of these facts and circumstances and in view of the past history of the assessee company, we have no hesitation in holding that the ld CIT (A) was justified in allowing the legal ground of the assessee that the reopening of the assessments were bad in law. The orders of the Assessing Officer were void ab-initio.(Para 5.1)
the claim of the assessee was accepted in past, therefore, in view of the rule of consistency, the claim of the assessee has to be accepted for the year under consideration as there is no change in facts or circumstances of the case. It is well settled position of law that the rule of consistency has to be followed. There is no doubt that res-judicata does not apply in income tax proceedings but if there is any change of circumstances, then principle of res-judicata is applicable.(Para 9)
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH ‘F’ MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI R.K.GUPTA, JM & SHRI R.K.PANDA, AM
ITA Nos.7263 to 7267 / Mum / 03
(Asstt.Years 1996-96 to 2000-01)
&
(Asstt.Year 2001-02)
