MRS.SHANTI BANERJEE vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the question framed by the Court on 19th December 2005 in the present appeals (ITA 1213/2005 and ITA 1214/2005) should be answered in the negative, which means in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue. This decision is based on the High Court's prior order dated 17th November 2015, which had already decided the identical issue raised in ITA 299/2003 in favor of the Assessee. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was set aside. The ratio decidendi is that where identical issues have been decided in favor of an assessee in a prior appeal, subsequent appeals involving the same assessee and the same issue should follow that precedent.
What were the facts?
The appeals were filed by Mrs. Shanti Banerjee (the Assessee) against the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (the Revenue). The appeals were to be listed with ITA 299/2003, but a clerical error in a previous order dated 19th December 2005 wrongly noted the related appeal as 'ITA 299/2005' instead of 'ITA 299/2003'. The High Court had previously, by an order dated 17th November 2015, decided the issue raised in ITA 299/2003, which was identical to the issue in the present appeals, in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the question framed by the Court on 19th December 2005 in ITA 1213/2005 and ITA 1214/2005 should be answered in favor of the Assessee or the Revenue? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The Assessee implicitly benefits from the High Court's prior decision in ITA 299/2003, which addressed the same issue and was decided in her favor. Therefore, the question should be answered in her favor. Revenue's Contention: No specific argument is recorded for the Revenue in this order. The order notes that the issue raised in ITA 299/2003 was answered in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~8, 9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 8 + ITA 1213/2005 MRS.SHANTI BANERJEE ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajat Navit, Advocate. Versus DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department. AND 9 + ITA 1214/2005 MRS.SHANTI BANERJEE ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajat Navit, Advocate. Versus DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 24.07.2017 1. These appeals were to be listed along with ITA 299/2003 which involved the same Appellant Assessee. However, in the order dated 19th December, 2005 passed in the present case, that number of the appeal with which this appeal has to be heard was wrongly noted as ‘ITA 299/2005’ instead of ‘ITA 299/2003’. 2. By the order dated 17th November 2015, this court has answered the issue
raised in ITA 299/2003 (which is the same as raised in the present appeals), in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 3. Accordingly, the question framed by this Court on 19th December, 2005 in the present appeal is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 4. These appeals are, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order of the ITAT is set aside. S.MURALIDHAR, J PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J JULY 24, 2017 j
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
