Heard Sri Ashish Agrawal, Learned Counsel For The Revenue Andsri C.s. Agrawal, Learned Senior Advocate, Assisted By Srishubham Agrawal, Learned Counsel For The v. Of The Assessee For A.ys. 2003-04 To 2012-13

Court No. - 29 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 60 of 2022 Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemptions Lucknow And Another Respondent :- Swami Omkarananda Saraswati Charitable TrustCounsel for Appellant :- Ashish AgrawalCounsel for Respondent :- Shubham Agrawal Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Acting Chief JusticeHon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the revenue andSri C.S. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by SriShubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the assessee. 2. Present appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'theAct') arising from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Delhi Bench:'B' New Delhi dated 07.09.2021, in ITA No.1887/DEL/2018, DCIT Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad Vs. SwamiOmkarananda Saraswati Charitable Trust for the A.Y. 2014-15. Bythat order the Tribunal has dismissed revenue's appeal andconfirmed the order of the CIT (Appeals) Haldwani, dated12.12.2017. By that order the CIT (Appeals) had (i) deletedaddition of Rs. 17,15,732/- being surplus arising in the conduct ofcharitable activity (ii) allowed depreciation Rs. 22,90,026/- (iii)allowed benefit of organisational donation Rs. 49,93,587/- and(iv) allowed benefit of corpus donation of Rs. 10,30,98,704/-.Primarily the Tribunal has reasoned-similar nature of activity anddonations etc. were subject matter of challenge in the assessmentproceedings for A.Y. 2010-11. The CIT (Appeals) had allowedassessee's appeal in that year. That view was confirmed by theTribunal while dismissing revenue's appeal in that Assessment Year, vide order dated 04.8.2017. That view prevailed in the case 3. Present appeal has been pressed on the following questions oflaw (as proposed): "1. Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified indismissing the appeal of the Revenue and allowing benefit of Section 11 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 without considering that the assessee is primarilyengaged in commercial activities? 2. Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified indismissing the appeal of the Revenue and allowing benefit of Section 11 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 without considering that the activities carried out bythe assessee during instant assessment year were not found to be covered bythe limb of 'charitable purpose' as defined in section 2(15) of the Income TaxAct, 1961? 3. Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had erred in law in therelying upon the orders passed in the assessee's own case for preceding yearswithout appreciating that income tax proceedings for each year is a differentproceedings and the principle of res judicata is not applicable in the incometax proceedings?" 4. At the very outset it may be noted, Swami OmkaranandaSaraswati Charitable Trust (hereinafter described as 'the assessee')came into existence on 31.03.1989. It was registered with the SubRegistrar Dev Prayag, Uttarakhand on 10.4.1989. It is not indispute that the objects of the trust were to develop schools andcolleges to impart education and also to provide medical aid to theneedy. Undisputedly, those objects were 'charitable' within themeaning of that word under Section 2(15) of the Act. Not onlythat, the assessee was granted registration under Section 12A of theAct by the CIT, Meerut on 01.4.1989. That registration remainedvalid and has continued through the Assessment Year in question. 5. Then, the Tribunal has noted, the assessee continued to enjoyexemption under Section 11/12 of the Act since the A.Y. 2002-03onwards. During the A.Y. 2010-11, the Assessing Authority of theassessee took a different view and disallowed the claim ofexemption. However, upon appeal, the CIT (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal for that Assessment Year and granted exemption.It was confirmed in further appeal, by the Tribunal, vide its orderdated 04.08.2017. 5. Then, the Tribunal has noted, the assessee continued to enjoyexemption under Section 11/12 of the Act since the A.Y. 2002-03onwards. During the A.Y. 2010-11, the Assessing Authority of theassessee took a different view and disallowed the claim ofexemption. However, upon appeal, the CIT (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal for that Assessment Year and granted exemption.It was confirmed in further appeal, by the Tribunal, vide its orderdated 04.08.2017. 6. Upon query made, learned counsel for the revenue fairly statesthat the said order of the Tribunal has long attained finality.Similar results arose in the assessment proceedings for A.Ys.2011-12 and 2012-13. 7. Since primary facts affecting the claim of exemption on thestrength of 'charitable purpose' pursued by the assessee remainedcommon for all Assessment Years, as were specifically examinedduring the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2010-11, as haveremained unaltered throughout, it is to be seen if any differentview may have been taken by the revenue authorities despiteapplication of rule of consistency as enunciated by the SupremeCourt in Radhasoami Satsang vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(1992) 193 ITR 321. 8. Learned counsel for the revenue has not pointed out any factdifference- of fact or in law having arisen in the Assessment Yearin question. That aspect has not been pressed. Seen in that light,the Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the surplusgenerated by the assessee in the pursuit of its 'charitable purpose'could not be taxed as profit. That view had been taken by theTribunal in the appeal for the A.Y. 2010-11. Again it is not indispute that the said order of the Tribunal and further orders haveattained finality. The activity pursued by the assessee havingremained same and it not being in dispute that the assessee wasgranted registration under Section 12 A of the Act whichregistration has also remained intact, it is not possible to allow therevenue to entertain another view in the subsequent Assessment 9. While none may sucessfully contend or invoke res judicata intaxation matters, at the same time, in absence of any difference offundamental fact or law arising in subsequent Assessment Year andin face of the same dispute having been thrashed out inter partes inearlier Assessment Year and a definite opinion having been formedby the Tribunal for the same as had also attained finality and hasbeen consistently applied in the case of the assessee itself (overdifferent Assessment Years), which orders have also attainedfinality, the rule of consistency would commend that view toprevail, in all succeeding Assessment Years. 10. To allow the revenue to re-agitate decided issues solelybecause each Assessment Year is a separate unit for which a freshassessment order is to be passed, would be to make a mockery ofjudicial decision making. Revenue goals apart, the primary needof good tax administration remains transparency, predictability andcertainty. Revenue may seek to take different view over same orsimilar facts involved in different years, based on differentappreciation of such facts, arising primarily from different officerscoming to deal with those facts in different Assessment Years. 11. That circumstance or occurrence is natural and unavoidable inthe running of the State machinery. Yet, it may never be forgotten,the little entity that the assessee is, suffers the process adopted bythe gigantic State machinery to yield the precious oil of tax,remains the same. It may not be exposed to multiple and differentcrushing processes, every year, in the ambitious desire to extractmore oil/revenue. 12. Being the live force that grants the State its legitimacy andpurpose to exist, the little entity that the assessee is, must be 11. That circumstance or occurrence is natural and unavoidable inthe running of the State machinery. Yet, it may never be forgotten,the little entity that the assessee is, suffers the process adopted bythe gigantic State machinery to yield the precious oil of tax,remains the same. It may not be exposed to multiple and differentcrushing processes, every year, in the ambitious desire to extractmore oil/revenue. 12. Being the live force that grants the State its legitimacy andpurpose to exist, the little entity that the assessee is, must be protected and assured of same assessment process year after year,to grant to it an environment in which it may not only survive butmay look to thrive. The decision in Radhasoami Satsang (supra)has been consistently applied by Courts for the last more than threedecades. Therein it was observed:- "We are aware of the fact that, strictly speaking, res judicata does not applyto income-tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what isdecided in one year may not apply in the following year but where afundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years hasbeen found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed thatposition to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at allappropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year." 13. That view expounded by two bench decision of the SupremeCourt was reiterated by a three bench decision of that Court in CITVs. Excel Industries Ltd (2013) 358 ITR 295. It has beenconsistently applied by Courts to ensure predictability andcertainty in tax litigation. 14. In the present case also, in view of absence of any change tothe law and in absence of any fresh facts shown to be involved inthe Assessment Year in question, we do not find, the Tribunal hascommitted any error in pressing into service the rule ofconsistency and enforcing on the revenue its view taken in the caseof the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11. 15. Similar position obtains with respect to dis-allowance ofdepreciation Rs. 22,90,026/-. Again, occasioned by exact similarityof facts, the Tribunal has upheld the order of the CIT (Appeals)relying on its earlier order for the A.Y. 2010-11. As to ground No.3 with respect to inter organisational donations Rs. 49,93,587/- andcorpus donations Rs. 10,30,98,704/-, yet again the Tribunal hasrelied on its earlier order for the A.Y. 2010-11. 16. Thus, on all issues, upon query made, learned counsel for the revenue could not dispute that there exist findings recorded infavour of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11. Thus, it cannot bedisputed that the issues being raised in the present appeal had beenthrashed out before the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2010-11. That orderhas long attained finality. 17. No other ground has been pressed and no other submission hasbeen advanced by the revenue. 18. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the Tribunal donot give rise to any substantial question of law as may requireconsideration by this Court. 19. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 15.3.2023Faraz (Saumitra Dayal Singh, J) (Pritinker Diwaker, ACJ)