Antony Dominic, J.

1. These three appeals are filed by the assessee, who is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, upholding the assessment orders passed for the assessment years 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2010-11.

2. Assessee is a company engaged in portfolio management services having obtained necessary registration from the SEBI. The return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 was filed and assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was completed, treating the transactions in purchase and sale of shares as 'business income' instead of capital gains as shown by the assessee company. In so far as the assessment year 2006-07 is concerned, return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and assessment was completed. After completing the assessment for the assessment year 2008-09, the assessment for 2006-07 was reopened by the Assessing Officer invoking his power under section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, assessment was completed under section 143(3), where also, the income of the assessee from the purchase and sale of shares, which was originally treated as short term capital gains and taxed at the lower rate, was assessed as business income. The assessment for the year 2010-11 was also completed under section 143(3) as in the case of the assessment year 2008-09. These orders were confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) and the Tribunal, dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee. This is the background in which these appeals are filed.

3. The questions of law framed in ITA.267/14, which is common in these appeals, are the following:

“(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in confirming the reopening of assessment under Section 147?

(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in confirming that the profit on sale of shares is to be assessed under the head “income business” and not under the head “capital gains”?

(3) Whether there was any material or documents on record to justify the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the Appellant is engaged in trading activity and therefore profit on sale of shares should be assessed under the head “income from business”?

(4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the Department having accepted the assessment of similar income under the head “capital gains” for earlier Assessment Years and intervening Assessment Years, the assessment under the head “income from business” for this Assessment Year is justified?

(5) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in disregarding the decisions of various High Courts including the jurisdictional High Court which were relied on at the time of hearing, without a speaking order as to why they are not followed.”

4. We heard the senior counsel for the appellant and the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue.

5. According to the learned senior counsel, the reopening of the assessment for the year 2006-07, invoking the power under section 147 of the Act, is illegal. He also contended that the grounds contemplated for re-opening an assessment under section 147 are not existing in this case. According to him, the assessee has been in the business since the assessment year 2002-03 and that till 2006-07, the income derived by the assessee from the sale and purchase of shares was accepted by the Department as capital gains and that by treating such income for the aforesaid three assessment years as business income, the Department has shown that it did not have consistency in the matter of assessment and treatment of income. It was also his case that even after reopening the assessments for the year 2006-07 and completing the assessments for the years 2008-09 and 2010-11, the Department has left out assessments for the years 2007-08 and 2009-2010. According to the counsel, such picking and choosing some of the years and leaving out