JUDGMENT Pritinker Diwaker, ACJ. Heard Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the revenue and Sri C.S. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the assessee. 2. Present appeal has been filed by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arising from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench:'B' New Delhi dated 07.09.2021, in ITA No. 1887/DEL/2018, DCIT Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad v. Swami Omkarananda Saraswati Charitable Trust for the A.Y. 2014-15. By that order the Tribunal has dismissed revenue's appeal and confirmed the order of the CIT (Appeals) Haldwani, dated 12.12.2017. By that order the CIT (Appeals) had (i) deleted addition of Rs. 17,15,732/- being surplus arising in the conduct of charitable activity (ii) allowed depreciation Rs. 22,90,026/- (iii) allowed benefit of organisational donation Rs. 49,93,587/- and (iv) allowed benefit of corpus donation of Rs. 10,30,98,704/-. Primarily the Tribunal has reasoned-similar nature of activity and donations etc. were subject matter of challenge in the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2010-11. The CIT (Appeals) had allowed assessee's appeal in that year. That view was confirmed by the Tribunal while dismissing revenue's appeal in that Assessment Year, vide order dated 04.8.2017. That view prevailed in the case of the assessee for A.Ys. 2003-04 to 2012-13. 3. Present appeal has been pressed on the following questions of law (as proposed): "1. Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and allowing benefit of section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering that the assessee is primarily engaged in commercial activities? 2. Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and allowing benefit of section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering that the activities carried out by the assessee during instant assessment year were not found to be covered by the limb of 'charitable purpose' as defined in section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had erred in law in the relying upon the orders passed in the assessee's own case for preceding years without appreciating that income tax proceedings for each year is a different proceedings and the principle of res judicata is not applicable in the income tax proceedings?" 4. 3. Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had erred in law in the relying upon the orders passed in the assessee's own case for preceding years without appreciating that income tax proceedings for each year is a different proceedings and the principle of res judicata is not applicable in the income tax proceedings?" 4. At the very outset it may be noted, Swami Omkarananda Saraswati Charitable Trust (hereinafter described as 'the assessee') came into existence on 31.03.1989. It was registered with the Sub Registrar Dev Prayag, Uttarakhand on 10.4.1989. It is not in dispute that the objects of the trust were to develop schools and colleges to impart education and also to provide medical aid to the needy. Undisputedly, those objects were 'charitable' within the meaning of that word under Section 2(15) of the Act. Not only that, the assessee was granted registration under Section 12A of the Act by the CIT, Meerut on 01.4.1989. That registration remained valid and has continued through the Assessment Year in question. 5. Then, the Tribunal has noted, the assessee continued to enjoy exemption under Section 11/12 of the Act since the A.Y. 2002-03 onwards. During the A.Y. 2010-11, the Assessing Authority of the assessee took a different view and disallowed the claim of exemption. However, upon appeal, the CIT (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal for that Assessment Year and granted exemption. It was confirmed in further appeal, by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 04.08.2017. 6. Upon query made, learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that the said order of the Tribunal has long attained finality. Similar results arose in the assessment proceedings for A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13. 7. Since primary facts affecting the claim of exemption on the strength of 'charitable purpose' pursued by the assessee remained common for all Assessment Years, as were specifically examined during the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2010-11, as have remained unaltered throughout, it is to be seen if any different view may have been taken by the revenue authorities despite application of rule of consistency as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 193 ITR 321 . 8. Learned counsel for the revenue has not pointed out any fact difference-of fact or in law having arisen in the Assessment Year in question. That aspect has not been pressed. 8. Learned counsel for the revenue has not pointed out any fact difference-of fact or in law having arisen in the Assessment Year in question. That aspect has not been pressed. Seen in that light, the Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the surplus generated by the assessee in the pursuit of its 'charitable purpose' could not be taxed as profit. That view had been taken by the Tribunal in the appeal for the A.Y. 2010-11. Again it is not in dispute that the said order of the Tribunal and further orders have attained finality. The activity pursued by the assessee having remained same and it not being in dispute that the assessee was granted registration under Section 12 A of the Act which registration has also remained intact, it is not possible to allow the revenue to entertain another view in the subsequent Assessment Year solely because each Assessment Year is a separate unit. 9. While none may successfully contend or invoke res judicata in taxation matters, at the same time, in absence of any difference of fundamental fact or law arising in subsequent Assessment Year and in face of the same dispute having been thrashed out inter parties in earlier Assessment Year and a definite opinion having been formed by the Tribunal for the same as had also attained finality and has been consistently applied in the case of the assessee itself (over different Assessment Years), which orders have also attained finality, the rule of consistency would commend that view to prevail, in all succeeding Assessment Years. 10. To allow the revenue to re-agitate decided issues solely because each Assessment Year is a separate unit for which a fresh assessment order is to be passed, would be to make a mockery of judicial decision making. Revenue goals apart, the primary need of good tax administration remains transparency, predictability and certainty. Revenue may seek to take different view over same or similar facts involved in different years, based on different appreciation of such facts, arising primarily from different officers coming to deal with those facts in different Assessment Years. 11. That circumstance or occurrence is natural and unavoidable in the running of the State machinery. Yet, it may never be forgotten, the little entity that the assessee is, suffers the process adopted by the gigantic State machinery to yield the precious oil of tax, remains the same. 11. That circumstance or occurrence is natural and unavoidable in the running of the State machinery. Yet, it may never be forgotten, the little entity that the assessee is, suffers the process adopted by the gigantic State machinery to yield the precious oil of tax, remains the same. It may not be exposed to multiple and different crushing processes, every year, in the ambitious desire to extract more oil/revenue. 12. Being the live force that grants the State its legitimacy and purpose to exist, the little entity that the assessee is, must be protected and assured of same assessment process year after year, to grant to it an environment in which it may not only survive but may look to thrive. The decision in Radhasoami Satsang (supra) has been consistently applied by Courts for the last more than three decades. Therein it was observed:- "We are aware of the fact that, strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year." 13. That view expounded by two bench decision of the Supreme Court was reiterated by a three bench decision of that Court in CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd (2013) 358 ITR 295 . It has been consistently applied by Courts to ensure predictability and certainty in tax litigation. 14. In the present case also, in view of absence of any change to the law and in absence of any fresh facts shown to be involved in the Assessment Year in question, we do not find, the Tribunal has committed any error in pressing into service the rule of consistency and enforcing on the revenue its view taken in the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11. 15. Similar position obtains with respect to dis-allowance of depreciation Rs. 22,90,026/-. Again, occasioned by exact similarity of facts, the Tribunal has upheld the order of the CIT (Appeals) relying on its earlier order for the A.Y. 2010-11. 15. Similar position obtains with respect to dis-allowance of depreciation Rs. 22,90,026/-. Again, occasioned by exact similarity of facts, the Tribunal has upheld the order of the CIT (Appeals) relying on its earlier order for the A.Y. 2010-11. As to ground No. 3 with respect to inter organisational donations Rs. 49,93,587/- and corpus donations Rs. 10,30,98,704/-, yet again the Tribunal has relied on its earlier order for the A.Y. 2010-11. 16. Thus, on all issues, upon query made, learned counsel for the revenue could not dispute that there exist findings recorded in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11. Thus, it cannot be disputed that the issues being raised in the present appeal had been thrashed out before the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2010-11. That order has long attained finality. 17. No other ground has been pressed and no other submission has been advanced by the revenue. 18. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the Tribunal do not give rise to any substantial question of law as may require consideration by this Court. 19. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.