Facts of the Case

The Revenue filed appeals before the High Court challenging a common order dated 24.11.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning AY 2015–16 and AY 2016–17.

There was a delay of 214 days in filing the appeals, for which condonation was sought and allowed without opposition from the assessee.

The Court noted that in earlier assessment years (2007–08 to 2010–11), similar issues had arisen, and the High Court had previously passed a remand order dated 22.07.2016, after which the Tribunal decided the matter on 22.10.2018.

Importantly, the Revenue did not challenge that earlier Tribunal decision.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue raised any substantial question of law under Section 260A.
  2. Whether issues identical to those decided earlier (and unchallenged by Revenue) can be re-agitated in subsequent years.

Petitioner’s (Revenue) Arguments

  • The Revenue challenged the Tribunal’s order dated 24.11.2021.
  • It sought consideration of issues arising in AY 2015–16 and AY 2016–17.
  • Delay in filing appeals was explained and condonation was requested.

Respondent’s (Assessee) Arguments

  • The assessee did not oppose condonation of delay.
  • It implicitly relied on consistency, highlighting that:
    • Identical issues had already been decided in earlier years.
    • The Revenue had accepted the Tribunal’s earlier order by not filing an appeal.

Court’s Findings / Order

  • The Court observed that:
    • Issues in the present appeals were pari materia (identical) to those decided in earlier years.
    • The Revenue had not challenged the earlier Tribunal decision after remand.
  • Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

Final Order

  • Appeals dismissed.
  • No substantial question of law found.

Important Clarification

  • When identical issues have attained finality in earlier years, and the Revenue has not challenged such findings:
    • It cannot subsequently re-agitate the same issues in later assessment years.
  • The principle of consistency and finality in tax litigation is reinforced.
  • Mere disagreement with Tribunal findings does not automatically give rise to a substantial question of law.

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/60813072023ITA1192023_131042.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.