Facts of the Case

  • The Revenue filed appeals before the High Court against the order of the ITAT dated 24.11.2021.
  • The appeals related to AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17.
  • There was a delay of 214 days in filing the appeals, for which condonation was sought.
  • The delay was condoned as the respondent did not oppose the application.
  • In earlier assessment years (2007-08 to 2010-11), similar issues had been remanded by the High Court and subsequently decided by the Tribunal on 22.10.2018.
  • The Revenue did not challenge the Tribunal’s decision for those earlier years.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue give rise to any substantial question of law under Section 260A.
  2. Whether the Revenue can re-agitate issues already settled in earlier assessment years where no appeal was filed.

Petitioner’s (Revenue’s) Arguments

  • The Revenue challenged the ITAT order dated 24.11.2021.
  • It sought consideration of issues arising from the Tribunal’s findings for the relevant assessment years.
  • It also requested condonation of delay in filing the appeals.

Respondent’s (Assessee’s) Arguments

  • The respondent did not oppose the condonation of delay.
  • It implicitly relied on the fact that identical issues had already been adjudicated in earlier years and accepted by the Revenue. 

Court’s Findings / Order

  • The High Court observed that the issues involved in the present appeals were pari materia (identical) to those in earlier assessment years.
  • Since the Revenue had not challenged the Tribunal’s earlier order, the matter had attained finality.
  • Consequently, the Court held that no substantial question of law arises.
  • The appeals were closed/dismissed accordingly.

Important Clarifications

  • Consistency in litigation is crucial: once an issue is accepted in earlier years, the Revenue cannot selectively challenge the same issue in subsequent years without justification.
  • The High Court emphasized the principle that absence of challenge in earlier years weakens the Revenue’s case in subsequent appeals.
  • The ruling reinforces that Section 260A jurisdiction is limited to substantial questions of law only.

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.