JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, C J. (Oral):- Admitted Mr. Inder Singh, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matters have been taken up for final hearing today. 2. These petitions have been filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside a communication dated October 25, 2000 (Annexure PK) and by directing the respondent- authorities to issue a certificate compounding the cases pending in the Court of chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla and prohibiting them from prosecuting the petitioner for any offence for the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. Other reliefs have also been claimed. 3. The case of the petitioner was that he received summons from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla stating therein that proceedings have been initiated against him by the respondents for the above assessment years for commission of certain offences under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is stated by the petitioner that for the four assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, the petitioner was assessed in accordance with law but thereafter notices were issued to him under Section 271-C of the Act for not paying legal income tax and he was asked whether he was ready and willing to get the cases compounded. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner appeared before the Income Tax Officer and showed his willingness to get the cases compounded. Accordingly, on March 18,1999, orders were passed compounding the cases pending against him (Annexure PB). The relevant part reads as under: "In this connection, I am to inform you that you will pay compounding fee before composition of prosecution for each of the years as under:- Asstt. Year: 1979-80: Income declared in the original return: 23,920/- Income assessed after appeal effect: 77,280/- Income sought to be concealed: 53.360/- Amount of tax calculated @ 60% i.e. at the maximum marginal rate on the income sought to be concealed. 32,016/- Compounding fee payable: (@ 100%): 32,0161- Asstt. Year: 1980-01: Income declared in the original return: 56,630/- Income assessed after appeal effect: 1,12,650/- Income sought to be concealed: 56,020/- Amount of tax on it @ 60%: 33,612/- Compounding fee payable: (@ 100%): 33,612/- Asstt. 32,016/- Compounding fee payable: (@ 100%): 32,0161- Asstt. Year: 1980-01: Income declared in the original return: 56,630/- Income assessed after appeal effect: 1,12,650/- Income sought to be concealed: 56,020/- Amount of tax on it @ 60%: 33,612/- Compounding fee payable: (@ 100%): 33,612/- Asstt. Year: 1981-82 Income declared in the original return: 26,270/- Income assessed after appeal effect: 92,630/- Income sought to be concealed: 66,410/- Amount of tax on it calculated @ 60%: 39,346/- Asstt. Year: 1982-83 Income declared in the original return: Loss(-) 5,650/- Income assessed after appeal effect: 90,350/- Income sought to be concealed: 90,350/- Amount of tax calculated on it @ 60%: 54,210/- Compounding fee payable (@ 100%) of above tax." 54,210/- 4. The petitioner was asked to appear before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Railway Board Building, Shimla on March 23,1999 during the office hours and to give his consent whether he was ready to pay the compounding fee as worked out in the said order. 5. The petitioner vide a communication dated April 15, 1999 (annexure PC), stated that for his whole life he was paying tax honestly and cooperated with the department in the finalisation of assessment proceedings as well as payment of tax. He submitted that it was his first offence and that was too "with some wrong advice" given by his lawyer and due to misunderstanding. He stated that he had already deposited the amount of tax, interest and penalty. He further stated that he was an old man and wanted to live Me peacefully and did not want to go to Court because of his poor health. He, therefore, stated that he was ready and willing to pay the amount as per the communication vide Annexure PB. He stated that he would deposit the amount as soon as intimation will be given to him. A communication dated June 16, 1999 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.4, Shimla shows that against an amount of Rs. 1,80,613/-, the petitioner was asked to pay an amount of Rs.2,03,158/-. It is not in dispute by and between the parties that the said amount had already been paid by the petitioner. 6. According to the petitioner, thereafter, nothing was required to be done in the matter. Unfortunately, however, the authorities issued a communication on October 25, 2000 (impugned in the present petition at Annexure PK). It is not in dispute by and between the parties that the said amount had already been paid by the petitioner. 6. According to the petitioner, thereafter, nothing was required to be done in the matter. Unfortunately, however, the authorities issued a communication on October 25, 2000 (impugned in the present petition at Annexure PK). The said communication, by Income Tax Officer Ward No.4 Shimla, stated that the compounding charges had not been correctly calculated in the letter dated March 18, 1999. As in the case of petitioner, "total concealed income" exceeded Rs. l .00 lac, the compounding fee payable by him would be more than the said amount and as such he was liable to pay Rs.3,51,304/-. The case, therefore, could not have been compounded and accordingly, proceedings launched against him would proceed. The said action of the department is challenged by the petitioner in these petitions. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Several contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is, however, not necessary for us to enter into larger question. 8. From the record, it is amply clear that the allegation of the department against the petitioner was that there was concealment of income tax by the petitioner in four assessment years; 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. It is also not in dispute that four cases have been instituted before a competent court even in the present proceedings; four writ petitions have been filed. It cannot be disputed and is not disputed that if each assessment year is taken as an independent unit, the concealed amount does not exceed Rs. 1.00 lac. A short question is whether each assessment year is to be taken into account as an independent unit or all the four years can be considered as one unit simultaneously and action can be initiated on that basis. In this connection, our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to some of the decisions of Supreme Court. 9. In this connection, our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to some of the decisions of Supreme Court. 9. The point had been elaborately dealt with in Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai, etc., v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat, AIR 1967 SC 762 wherein the Supreme Court observed thus: 12."It is true that an assessment year under the Income-tax Act is a self-contained assessment period and a decision in the assessment year does not ordinarily operate as res judicata in respect of the matter decided in any subsequent year, for the assessing officer is not a court and he is not precluded from arriving at a conclusion inconsistent with his conclusion in another year. It is open to the Income-Tax Officer, therefore, to depart from his decision in subsequent years, since the assessment is final and conclusive between the parties only in relation to the assessment for the particular year for which it is made. A decision reached in one year would be a cogent factor in the determination of a similar question in a following year, but ordinarily there is no bar against the investigation by the Income-tax Officer of the same facts on which a decision in respect of an earlier year was arrived at. But this rule, in our judgment, does not apply in dealing with an order under S. 25- A(I). Income from property of a Hindu undivided family "hitherto" assessed as undivided may be assessed separately if an order under Section 25-A (1) had been passed. When such an order is made, the family ceases to be assessed as a Hindu undivided family. Thereafter that family cannot be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family unless the order is set aside by a competent authority. Under Cl. (3) of S.25-A will have no application." In M.M. Ipoh & Ors. v. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras, AIR 1968 SC 317, the Apex Court observed that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply so as to make a decision on a question of fact or law in a proceeding for assessment in one year binding in another year. (3) of S.25-A will have no application." In M.M. Ipoh & Ors. v. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras, AIR 1968 SC 317, the Apex Court observed that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply so as to make a decision on a question of fact or law in a proceeding for assessment in one year binding in another year. The assessment and the facts found are conclusive only in the year of assessment: the findings on question of fact may be good and cogent evidence in subsequent year, when the same question falls to be determined in another year, but they are not binding and conclusive. A similar view was taken in Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd & Ors. v. Tadi Adhinarayana Reddy & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 2189. 10. It is no doubt true that if a question of law has been decided independent of assessment year such as, constitutional validity or vires of an Act, such a decision would operate s res judicata even in future litigation and cannot be challenged (Vide: Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. & Anr. v. Janapada Sabha Chhindwara & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1013). But, so far as the assessment years are concerned, it is well settled that each assessment year is an independent unit. 11. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the concealed amount did not exceed Rs. 1.00 lac in any assessment year, each assessment year must be taken as an independent and separate unit and could not have been consolidated and no action could have been taken on that basis. 12. No doubt, our attention was invited by the learned counsel for the respondents to the guidelines for compounding of offences under the direct taxes, namely, "Guidelines for compounding of the offences under the Direct Tax Laws", (annexure R-2) to the affidavit-in-reply dated October 20, 1995, wherein principles have been formulated when the concealed amount exceeded Rs. l .00 lac. Strong reliance was placed on paragraph 4 of the guidelines which reads as under: "To sum up, henceforth, the compounding fee would be worked out at 100% of the tax calculated at the maximum marginal rate of income sought to be concealed, where the amount is less than Rs. l .00 lakh and @ 200% of the income sought to be concealed exceeds Rs.(sic) lakh." 13. l .00 lakh and @ 200% of the income sought to be concealed exceeds Rs.(sic) lakh." 13. It was submitted that in the light of the above guidelines, statutory in nature, the impugned action cannot be held to be bad in law and the prosecution launched against the petitioner cannot be said to be ill founded. We cannot uphold the argument. Firstly, the said communication does not expressly or specifically state that an assessment year will not be taken as an independent unit. But even otherwise, in our considered opinion in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme court in several cases, for the purpose of considering the j provisions of the Act, each assessment year has to be considered as in independent unit for the purpose of payment of tax. If so, obviously, the guidelines dated October 20, 1995, would not apply to the cases on hand, inasmuch as, in none of the assessment years 1979- 80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. the concealed amount, reached Rs.l.00 lac. The petition, hence, deserve to be allowed. 14. Alternatively, it was submitted that even if two interpretations are possible, the one which favour the assessee (petitioner) will be accepted and not the one which would favour the revenue (respondents). We need not go into that question as, in our opinion, the law has been settled by the Supreme Court. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, all the petitions deserve to be allowed and are hereby allowed. The impugned communication at Annexure PK dated October 25, 2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. It goes without saying that all consequential actions taken by the respondent- authorities on the basis of the said communication also deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed. 16. The petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. The respondent-1 authorities will now issue necessary compounding certificate within three months. I 17. In the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.