This is appeal filed by Revenue (CIT) under s. 260A of IT Act against order dt. 30th June, 2003, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in ITA No. 104/Ind/1997. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether Tribunal was justified in giving benefit of loss sustained by assessee in joint venture amounting to Rs. 32,53,767 by placing reliance on s. 67A read with proviso to s. 86 of IT Act? Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that since share of assessee as one of members of AOP is definite (80 per cent) for calculating profit and loss and hence, their case will be governed by provisions of s. 67A of Act for purpose of giving them benefit of loss sustained by AOP in business?" Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for appellant/Revenue and Shri Vijay Asudani, learned counsel for respondent/assessee. At outset, learned counsel for appellant, i.e., Revenue brought to our notice that more or less similar questions which are subject-matter of this appeal (referred supra) were also subject-matter of reference made at instance of Revenue by Tribunal against this very assessee (respondent herein) under s. 256(1) of Act being IT Ref. No. 2 of 2000 for asst. yr. 1989-90 and this Court by order dt. 3rd Jan., 2005 [reported as CIT vs. D&H Secheron Electrodes Ltd. (2005) 194 CTR (MP) 211 Ed.] answered reference in favour of Revenue (CIT) and against assessee. It is, therefore, contended that so far as this appeal is concerned, only difference being that it relates to asst. yr. 1990-91 whereas IT Ref. No. 2 of 2000 relates to asst. yr. 1989-90 but controversy involved in both these cases is same and hence this appeal should be decided in favour of appellant by answering question in favour of Revenue (appellant herein) and against assessee on basis of same reasoning which is contained in order dt. 3rd Jan., 2005, passed in IT Ref. No. 2 of 2000. In other words, submission was that since controversy involved in IT Ref. No. 2 of 2000 and in this appeal being identical, only difference being that of different assessment years, this appeal be allowed by answering questions framed in favour of appellant to avoid conflicting views. In reply, learned counsel for assessee made attempt to distinguish decision rendered by this Court in IT Ref. No. 2 of 2000 and contended that though it is against this very assessee but in that case finding on issue was not recorded whereas in this case, it was so recorded and hence, this Court should answer question involved in this appeal independent to one answered against assessee in reference. This was question referred to this Court by Tribunal under s. 256(1) of Act for asst. yr. 1989-90 in IT Ref. No. 2 of 2000: "Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in holding that share of loss from joint venture could be set off against other income in assessment of member of joint venture/AOP, as assessed in assessment of joint venture/AOP even though other income of AOP is above taxable limit?" aforementioned question was answered by this Court by order, dt. 3rd Jan., 2005 in following words: "We, therefore, answer reference in favour of Revenue and against assessee as follows: In facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was not justified in holding that share of loss from joint venture could be set off against other income in assessment of member of joint venture/AOP as assessed in assessment of joint venture/AOP even though other income of AOP is above taxable limit." When we compare aforesaid question with one which is subject- matter of this appeal quoted supra, we notice that it is more or less similar. We thus cannot take any contrary view as against our view which we have already taken. It will amount to two conflicting views on same issue. judicial propriety does not permit us to re-examine more or less same legal issues in relation to case of same assessee in two different assessment years. In our relation to case of same assessee in two different assessment years. In our opinion, once we have expressed our view on merits of question then in such event, we have to follow same so long as it is not set aside/overruled by Supreme Court either in earlier case in appeal if filed by assessee or in some other case, involving identical issue. Accordingly and in view of aforesaid limited discussion, we are inclined to accept submission of learned counsel for appellant (Revenue) and in consequence, allow appeal in light of our decision rendered on 3rd Jan., 2005, passed in IT Ref. No. 2 of 2000 CIT vs. D&H Secheron Electrodes Ltd. (supra) impugned order is accordingly, set aside. reasoning contained in our order dt. 3rd Jan., 2005 shall equally apply to this appeal as well. copy of order dt. 3rd Jan., 2005, passed in IT Ref. No. 2 of 2000 be kept in file of this appeal and it be treated as part of this order. No costs. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE v. D & H SECHERON ELECTRODES LTD.