TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which may be reversed. 2. Since the points involved are interlinked, we take up the appeals together for disposal by this common order. 3. For the first year, the issue was regarding the assessability of Rs. 10,90,422 after a relief of Rs. 2,23,784 out of the interest income and other receipts of Rs. 13,14,206. According to the assessee, this computation was wrong, contrary to the principles of law and accountancy and that the expenses claimed under different heads should have been allowed under the law. There are other grounds of appeal also for the year. 4. In the assessment order for the first year, the assessing officer mentioned that the assessee is a corporation engaged mainly in agricultural activities and expenses claimed we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apitalised and it was not the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to what treatment would be given regarding interest earned on the surplus fund. The CIT(A) went on further to discuss different legal aspects of the matter as dealt with by different High Courts, viz., the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Cap Steel Ltd. [1986] 162 ITR 533/29 Taxman 125, Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Collis Line (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1982] 135 ITR 390 etc. The CIT(A) ultimately on reasons recorded by, him, held that the assessing officer was justified in taking the interest income as income from other sources and the assessee's appeal on this point was dismissed, for the assessment year 1984-85. 6. For the following year, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of H.A. Shah Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 618, at page 624 onwards. It was observed, amongst other things, that while taking the view that the principle of res judicata would not strictly apply to Income-tax assessment, it was made clear that it was not suggested that it was open to the Tribunal to come to a different conclusion than arrived at by the very Tribunal earlier without any limitation whatsoever. Unless the second Tribunal may look upon the decision given earlier as erroneous in law so as to justify to come to a contrary conclusion, the earlier decision of the same question cannot be reopened if that decision is not arbitrary or perverse, if it had been arrived at a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order which had become final. As pointed out above, there was no new material having been placed before the CIT(A) or before us to infer that there were fresh facts or materials for consideration. In the case of Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 618, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the decision of the Appellate Tribunal has become final, the ITO is bound by the decision and refusal to carry out such directions would open for writ of mandamus before the appropriate authorities. It was held that such refusal was in fact a denial of justice and once the decision of the Appellate Tribunal having become final, it was not open to the judicial Commissioner to hold that the order was wrong and such violation was destructive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) or by way of rectification under section 254(2) etc. In that view of the matter, the earlier decision of the Appellate Tribunal had become final. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of S.P. Gramophone Co. v. ITAT [1986] 160 ITR 417/27 Taxman 155 in which on the facts and in the context of that case, it was held that if the correctness of the remand order was not challenged through appropriate proceedings, it would not be open to review it when the matter comes again before that authority in appeal or revision against the order passed by the authorities below in accordance with the remand order. Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of R.K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or materials have been shown to have been cropped up in the present two years under consideration. In fact, the first ground of appeal by the assessee for the first year was every much on this score. In such a situation, it may be helpful to refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi [1977] 110 ITR 453 in which on the facts of that case and in the context of that Madras case, it was held that no Tribunal of fact has any right or jurisdiction to come to a conclusion entirely contrary to the one reached by any Bench of the same Tribunal on the same facts. Otherwise, it would be destructive of the institutional integrity itself and it would not only sake the confidence of the public in the judic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
