DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION Vs. DHARM PRATISTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARRIVAL of counsel for the respondent was awaited up to 12.25 p.m. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the particulars referred to in the last order are not available with the Department and, thereforee, in terms of the last order, the matter is taken up for hearing finally.

(2.) PERUSED the contents of paragraph 7 of the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an identical issue is arising for decision in several other matters, though in the case at hand the issue was not pursued further by filing a reference relevant to the assessment year 1985 -86, yet the right of the petitioner to move this court for the next year of assessment, i.e., 1986 -87, is not taken away inasmuch as every year's assessment proceeding is an independent proceeding in the eye of law and the rule of rest judicata is not in terms applicable to the tax assessment proceedings, (see CIT v. M. Chawla : [1989]177ITR299(Delhi)

(3.) NO order as to costs.