The Question raised by the revenue before the High Court is “ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law ,the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowances made u/s 37(1) without appreciating the facts of the case and legal matrix as clearly brought out by the AO and the CIT(A) ? “     Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that ;   the impugned order of the Tribunal records the fact that the Revenue Authorities have consistently over the years i.e. for the 10 years  prior to Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and for 4 subsequent years, accepted the principle that all expenses which has been incurred are attributable entirely to earning professional income. Therefore, the Revenue allowed the expenses to determine professional income without any amount being allocated to earn capital gain. In the subject assessment year, the Assessing Officer has deviated from these principles without setting out any reasons to deviate from an accepted principle. Moreover, the impugned order of the Tribunal also records that the Revenue was not able to point out any distinguishing features in the present facts, which would warrant a different view in the subject assessment year from that taken in the earlier and subsequent assessment years. Accordingly the Court held that though the principle ofres judicata does not apply to income-tax matters, the principles of consistency does. If the Revenue has accepted a practice and consistently applied and followed it, the Revenue is bound by it. The Revenue can change the practice only if there is a change in law or change in facts and not otherwise . ( ITA No. 280 of 2016, dt. 28.06.2018) (AY.2008 -09)

[Click here to download PDF file]