TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment under section 143(3)/147 was not regular assessment and interest under section 139(8) was not chargeable on the delay in filing the return of income? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80G on the donation of Rs. 1,57,500 when the same was not claimed in the original return and was not allowed accordingly? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) direction to carry forward the correct amount of deficiency under section 80J(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when the Assessing Officer had already allowed in the original assessment order of the assessee such deficiency to be carried forward?" With respect to question No. 3 the admitted position is that the same does not require to be answered by this court as it merely pertains to the correct working out of the carry forward of deficiency under section 80J. With regard to question No. 1 the facts relevant are that the assessee file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income which has escaped tax or has been underassessed and does not extend to revising, reopening or reconsidering the whole assessment or permitting the assessee to reagitate questions which have been decided in the original assessment proceedings. It was further submitted by Mr. Mallick that the judgment relied upon by the assessee's counsel before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in CIT v. Indian Rare Earth Ltd. [1990] 181 ITR 22 (Bom) [FB] and the judgment of various High Courts which have taken the view that in the proceedings under section 147 of the Act the entire assessment is reopened, the original assessment is "wiped out" and the assessee can put forward all pleas were considered by the Supreme Court in Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297, and it was observed that the same support their conclusions relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in V. Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT and EPT [1970] 75 ITR 373, the Supreme Court, it was submitted by Mr. Mallick, examined the judgment in V. Jaganmohan Rao's case [1970] 75 ITR 373 and explained the same in the following terms: The principle laid down by this court in V. Jaganmohan Rao's case, therefore, is only to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was thereupon submitted by Mr. Mallick that question No. 2 in the light of the aforesaid judgment need to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. On the other hand, Mr. Khaitan, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the judgment in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) is a two-judge Bench judgment whereas the judgment in V. Jaganmohan Rao's case [1970] 75 ITR 373 (SC), is a three-judge Bench judgment. The same was followed by another two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in ITO v. Mewalal Dwarka Prasad [1989] 176 ITR 529 and more recently by a three-judge Bench in ITO v. K.L. Srihari (HUF) [2001] 250 ITR 193 (SC). True as contended by Mr. Khaitan in K.I. Srihari (HUF) [2001] 50 ITR 193 (SC), a three-judge Bench considered the following judgments: (1) CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC); (2) ITO v. Mewalal Dwarka Prasad [1989] 176 ITR 529 (SC); and (3) V. Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT and EPT [1970] 75 ITR 373 (SC). but observed that: "In these circumstances we do not consider it necessary to go into the question that is raised and the same is left open ..." It has been noticed in the said ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the previous decision. A decision often takes its colour from the question involved in the case in which it is rendered. The scope and authority of a precedent should never be expanded unnecessarily beyond the needs of a given situation. The only thing binding as an authority upon a subsequent judge is the principle upon which the case was decided. Statements which are not part of the ratio decidendi are distinguished as obiter dicta and are not authoritative. The task of finding the principle is fraught with difficulty, as without an investigation into the facts, it cannot be assumed whether a similar direction must or ought to be made as a measure of social justice. Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment. Mere casual expression carry no weight at all, nor every passing expression of a judge, however eminent, can be treated as an ex cathedra statement having the weight of authority." Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are respectfully of the view that in K.L. Srihari (HUF) [2001] 250 ITR 193, the Supreme Court did not consider it necessary to go into the views expressed by different Benches of the Supreme Court on the scope and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to reconsidering generally the concluded earlier assessment. Claims which have been disallowed in the original assessment proceeding cannot be permitted to be reagitated on the assessment being reopened for bringing to tax certain income which had escaped assessment because the controversy on reassessment is confined to matters which are relevant only in respect of the income which had not been brought to tax during the course of the original assessment. A matter not agitated in the concluded original assessment proceedings also cannot be permitted to be agitated in the reassessment proceedings unless relatable to the item sought to be taxed as 'escaped income'. Indeed, in the reassessment proceedings for bringing to tax items which had escaped assessment, it would be open to an assessee to put forward claims for deduction of any expenditure in respect of that income or the non-taxability of the items at all. Keeping in view the object and purpose of the proceedings under section 147 of the Act which are for the benefit of the Revenue and not an assessee, an assessee cannot be permitted to convert the reassessment proceedings as his appeal or revision, in disguise, and seek relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
