The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had offered substantial concession in rent to the wakf and had let out two properties at a much lower rate as compared to the market rate of rent in lieu of voluntary and corpus donations and therefore, invoked the provisions of section 13(2)(b) read with section 13(3) and denied exemption under sections 11 and 12. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals of the assessee.   Tribunal held that there was no justification for invoking the provisions of section 13(2)(b) read with section 13(3) by the Assessing Officer. On appeal dismissing the appeals the Court held that  there was no perversity in the findings of the Tribunal that the Department had failed to bring on record any cogent evidence to show that the rent received by the assessee, in the facts of the case, was inadequate, that the material collected from the internet and the estate agents could not be termed as a corroborative piece of evidence and that the rent received by the assessee had exceeded the valuation adopted by the Municipal Corporation for the purpose of levying house tax. Court held that though strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to Income-tax proceedings as each AY. is a separate unit, in the absence of any material change justifying the Department to take a different view of the matter, the position of fact accepted by the Department over a period of time should not be allowed to be reopened unless the Department is able to establish compelling reasons for a departure from the settled position. Relied on CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC). (AY.  2007-08 to 2010-11)