TMI Blog1972 (4) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge(s) : T. C. RAGHAVAN., N. D. P. NAMBOODIRIPAD. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by RAGHAVAN C.J.-The two questions referred to us in these cases are : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in not following the finding of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in its earlier order dated June 27, 1966, in I.T.As. Nos. 383 384 of 1964-65 that the assessee was not estopped from contending that the investments were made by his father ? and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the investments represent the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources for the assessment years 1954-55 and 1955- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remanded the proceedings to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and directed him to examine the assessee's explanation on merits. The Tribunal also directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to call upon the assessee to file an affidavit giving his definite explanation for the investments. And he stated that the investments must have been made by his father directly. Against the remand order the revenue did not seek a reference : and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner investigated the matter in detail, looked into the definite explanation given, and the evidence produced, by the assessee and came to the conclusion that " it is a hard fact to face that the investments ultimately retained of Rs. 52,378 and Rs. 14,490 would in fact be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... One of them is Kantilal Chimanlal Shah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where it has been laid down that the doctrine of estoppel does not apply in cases of successive assessments, that an assessment is complete in itself and that the taxing department is not bound by any contention it took up in one assessment when the question arises with regard to a different assessment. Another decision brought to our notice is Commissioner of Income-tax v. Army and Navy Stores Ltd., where the Bombay High Court has held that if an assessee has obtained a benefit by making a certain representation to the taxing authorities, he cannot be permitted to deny the truth of the representation at a later stage. Yet another decision cited is again of the Bombay Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; that it cannot operate against the provisions of a statute ; that if a particular income is not taxable under the Income-tax Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel or any other equitable doctrine ; that equity is out of place in tax law ; that a particular income is either exigible to tax under the taxing statute or it is not ; and that the Income-tax Officer has no power to impose tax on the said income if it is not taxable under the law. We may now state the legal position thus. If the Tribunal does not dispose of the appeal and keeps seisin of it when it remands the case (in other words, if the remand is only in the nature of calling for a finding), then it may be permissible for the Tribunal to reconsider a view expressed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar that this application of estoppel does not apply to cases of successive assessments; it applies only to the same assessment: in other words, the assessee will be bound by his earlier representation of fact and will not be allowed to go back on it at a subsequent stage of the same assessment. Similarly, even on a wrong decision on a point of law if the Tribunal passed an order of remand and that order has become final since no reference was obtained to question its correctness, then the decision is binding between the parties in the said assessment and neither of them will be allowed to question it or reopen it in another appeal before the Tribunal. Applying these principles, it is clear that the Tribunal should not have relied upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing the said decision as if in an appeal. This the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to do, since the remand in this case was not a mere calling for a finding, since the Tribunal lost seisin of the case when it remanded the case and since the appeal was no more pending before the Tribunal after the remand and the subsequent appeal was a different appeal. If the revenue wanted to rely on estoppel, the revenue should have obtained a reference on the earlier occasion and should have also obtained an answer from this court in its favour if it could. Having failed to do that, estoppel could not have been raised before the Tribunal on the second occasion. It is also worthwhile to remember that the earlier statement by the assessee was in another asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
