Consistency in decision-making and the need for cogent reasoning when deviating from previous decisions are essential principles in administrative and judicial decision-making.

JUDGMENT

Girish Kathpalia, J.

1. Cogent and consistent answering to every "why" is the DNA of demosprudence. Consistency of not just the content of reasoning, but consistency of also the anvil on which the process of reasoning rests are antedote to the vice of arbitrariness. Every decision making authority, be it judicial or administrative, being public servant is accountable to the State and its subjects. Consistency, both in content and in procedure has to be adhered to in order to ensure predictability of the decisions. The absence of consistency and the consequent unpredictability of the decisions, both judicial as well as administrative leads to cynicism in the society. In order to ensure procedural and content consistency in decisions, every decision making authority should ensure that in a given set of circumstances, their decision must be on same lines as that of their predecessor or co-ordinate authorities in similar set of circumstances. Where a decision making authority finds itself unable to agree with the view earlier taken, by the predecessor or the co-ordinate, the authority concerned is duty bound to record cogent reasons for deviating. Significance of precedence cannot be ignored even in administrative decision making.

1.1 Two sets of identical circumstances pertaining to the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17, but same decision making authority, rendering two decisions inconsistent with each other is what faces us in this writ action.

2. The petitioner, assessed to income tax has approached this court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to quash the notice dated 31.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the order dated 31.07.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Upon service of notice, the respondent revenue entered appearance through counsel and resisted the action. We heard learned counsel for both sides and examined the records.

3. Briefly stated, the case set up by the petitioner is as follows.

3.1 The petitioner, a senior citizen, being proprietor of M/s Chopra Brothers is an authorized dealer for Kiloskar Electric Motors and is engaged in trading of industrial electric motors, mono-block pumps and generator sets etc.

3.2 For the assessment year 2015-16, petitioner filed return of his income, declaring the same to be Rs. 19,94,970/-, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. On 07.04.2021, respondent no. 1 issued notice under Section 148 of the Act, which on being challenged by the petitioner, was set aside in terms with decision of this court in the case of Mon Mohan Kohli vs CIT, (2021) 441 ITR 207 (Delhi).

3.3 Thereafter, in terms with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Aggarwal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543, respondent no.1 issued notice dated 26.05.2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act, alleging that on 26.11.2016 a search had been conducted in the premises of an entry operator, namely Shri Mohit Garg and during that search, in his statement Shri Rajeev Khushwaha admitted having provided bogus sale/purchase bills in exchange for cash; and that during the year relevant to the assessment year 2015-16, M/s Chopra Brothers through its proprietor Shri Prem Kumar Chopra was one of the beneficiaries of such accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 13,71,00,000/-.

3.4 According to the petitioner, an identical notice dated 25.07.2022 was issued to the petitioner for the accounting year 2016-17 as well.

3.5 The petitioner submitted replies dated 10.06.2022 and 21.07.2022 to the said show cause notice, thereby categorically denying any transaction with M/s Divya International and Shri Rajeev Khushwaha. Alongwith the replies, petitioner also submitted all relevant documents.

3.6 By way of order dated 28.07.2022, respondent no. 1 accepting the case set up by the petitioner, dropped the proceedings pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17, concluding that there is