- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Darius Pandole
Factual and Procedural Background
The Revenue filed an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 2003-04. During assessment proceedings under section 143(3), a notice under section 142(1) (dated November 7, 2003) queried why the assessee had debited a loss on sale of shares to the profit and loss account as a business expense, when the shares were shown as "investments" in the balance-sheet. The assessee responded (representation dated December 16, 2003) asserting that his business consisted of purchase and sale of shares and relied on precedent to contend that the manner of recording in the books does not alter the character of trading receipts. Similar queries had arisen and been answered in previous scrutiny assessments for the years 1997-98 and 2002-03, where the Assessing Officer ultimately accepted the assessee's contention and completed assessments. The Tribunal, when deciding the appeal for 2003-04, noted no change in facts from the earlier years and followed the precedent relied upon by the assessee; the Revenue challenged that conclusion before the court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in not upholding the Assessing Officer's treatment of the loss on sale of shares as a capital loss, given that the assessee had shown the shares under the head "investments" in the balance-sheet?
- Whether the Tribunal was correct in applying the ratio of Radhasoami (as relied upon by the assessee), in light of the proposition that the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings?
Arguments of the Parties
Revenue's Arguments
- The Assessing Officer treated the loss as capital loss because the shares were shown as "investments" in the balance-sheet; the Tribunal should have upheld that treatment.
- The Tribunal erred in applying the ratio of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, because the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings and thus an earlier acceptance in prior assessment years should not bind the current year's assessment.
Assessee's Arguments
- The trading receipt (loss on sale of shares) does not change its character merely because of the manner in which it is written up in the books; entries in the books cannot alter the character of the transaction.
- The assessee's business consisted of purchase and sale of shares and, on the same facts, earlier scrutiny assessments for 1997-98 and 2002-03 had considered the same issue and accepted the assessee's contention.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Radhasoami Statsang v. CIT, [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC | Authority cited by Revenue/parties concerning applicability of precedent across assessment years and the limits of res judicata in income-tax proceedings. | The Tribunal applied the ratio of this decision; the court held the Tribunal was justified in following it in the facts of the present case. |
| Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, [1992] 193 ITR 321 | The ratio relied upon to support that an issue previously considered and answered on identical facts need not be reopened simply because res judicata does not formally apply between assessment years. | The court agreed that the Tribunal was justified in following this Supreme Court decision given that the fundamental aspect had been previously considered and answered by the assessee under query. |
| Karsondas Ranchhoddas v. CIT, [1972] 83 ITR 256 | Cited as a Division Bench authority consistent with the court's view on re-consideration of issues already considered in prior assessment years. | The court observed that its view was consistent with the principle laid down in this decision. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the matter on the basis that the relevant facts for the assessment year 2003-04 were unchanged from the earlier assessment years (1997-98 and 2002-03). It observed that in those earlier years the Assessing Officer had raised the same issue, the assessee had replied to the query, and the assessments were finalized after considering that reply with the assessee's contention accepted. Given that a "fundamental aspect" of the character of the transactions had already been considered and answered on identical facts, the Tribunal's decision to follow the Supreme Court's ratio in Radhasoami Satsang was justified. The court acknowledged the general principle that res judicata does not, as an abstract rule, apply to income-tax assessments which are to be considered year by year; however, when the same issue has been newly raised by the Assessing Officer and has already been the subject of due consideration and answer on identical facts, a change of view for the later year was not warranted. The court further noted that this approach was consistent with the principle laid down by the Division Bench in Karsondas Ranchhoddas v. CIT. On that basis the court found no substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's decision.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED
Holding: The court dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Tribunal's decision to treat the loss on sale of shares, on the facts presented, in accordance with the view previously accepted in earlier assessment years and as consistent with Radhasoami Satsang and Karsondas Ranchhoddas.
Implications: The direct effect is that the Tribunal's decision stands for the assessment year 2003-04 and no substantial question of law is found to arise from that decision. The court expressly noted that, although res judicata does not generally apply across assessment years, a previously considered fundamental aspect answered on identical facts need not be reopened; no broader or novel precedent was announced beyond applying these existing authorities to the facts before the court.
1. The Revenue, in its appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has raised the following substantial questions of law:
“(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in not upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of treating the loss on sale of shares as capital loss ignoring the fact that instead of showing the shares as ‘stock-in-trade’ in the balance-sheet it was shown by the assessee under the head ‘investments’?
(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in applying the ratio of the decision of the case of Radhasoami Statsang v. CIT, [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) in the assessee's case as it is an established fact that the principle of res-judicata does not apply to the income-tax proceedings?”
2. The appeal relates to the assessment year 2003-04.
3. Both for the assessment years 1997-98 and 2002-03, scrutiny assessments were framed under section 143(3). In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2002-03, a notice was issued to the assessee under section 142(1) on November 7, 2003 in which the assessee was called upon to clarify as to why the loss on the sale of shares had been debited to the profit and loss account as a business expense. The assessee submitted a representation on December 16, 2003 in support of his contention that his business consisted of the purchase and sale of shares. The letter of the assessee recorded that during the course of discussions, the Assessing Officer had pointed out that he intended to treat the loss under the head “Income from capital gain” mainly on account of the fact that his stock of shares had been shown under the head “investments” in the balance-sheet.
4. The assessee submitted on the basis of precedent that the trading receipt would not cease to be so by being written up in the books of account in a particular manner and that the entries in the books of account could not alter or affect the character of the transaction. The same position obtained for the assessment year 1997-98 where a similar query was raised by the Assessing Officer to which the assessee had replied on September 18, 1999. Assessments were thereafter completed for the assessment years 1997-98 and 2002-03 and the contention of the assessee was duly accepted.
5. It is in this factual background that the Tribunal, while deciding the appeal for the assessment year 2003-04 has observed that there was no change in the set of facts and circumstances as they obtained for the assessment years 1997-98 and 2002-03. The Tribunal was correct in holding that there was due application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the very same issue during the course of the earlier two assessment years and that the assessments were finalized after considering the reply filed by the assessee specifically to the query raised by the Assessing Officer. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was, in our view, justified in following the decision of the Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, [1992] 193 ITR 321. While the principle of res judicata could not as an abstract principle apply to assessment proceedings since each year of assessment has to be considered separately, yet when a fundamental aspect was duly considered after a query was raised by the Assessing Officer and was answered by the assessee on the same facts, a change in view, was evidently not warranted for the assessment year in question. So construed, we do not find that the decision of the Tribunal will give rise to any substantial question of law. The view which we have taken is consistent with the principle laid down by the Division Bench of this court in Karsondas Ranchhoddas v. CIT, [1972] 83 ITR 256. The appeal is hence dismissed.
Alert