TMI Blog1941 (4) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese debts were (1) ₹ 159-6-0 said to be due to the assessee from Raja Ram Khora; (2) a sum of ₹ 1,524 said to be due from Ramjatan Ram; and (3) ₹ 1,220 said to be due from Charitar Ram of Ramkunda. The Income-tax authorities rejected the assessee's contention that these debts had become bad in the accounting year. They found that the debts had long before become bad and the claim should have been made very much earlier. It appears that the assessee made a similar claim in respect of these three debts for the year 1934-35. On that occasion the Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the debts had become bad long before the accounting year. On appeal the Assistant Commissioner, though upholding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come bad till then? In the case stated by the Commissioner the relevant portion of the various orders of the officers concerned are set out, and the commissioner expresses the view that as there is no bar by way of res judicata in income-tax proceedings it was open to the authorities in 1935-36 to come to a conclusion contrary to the conclusion arrived at in 1934-35. It is conceded that the principle of res judicata does not apply in income-tax proceedings; but it is said that in such proceedings an Income-tax Officer should not differ from a previous decision on the same matter unless new facts have been placed before him. Reliance was placed by Mr. Mazumdar, who has argued this case very fully, upon the case of T.M.M. Sankaralinga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so there should be facts which would entitle him to do it. If fresh facts come to light which on an investigation would entitle the Income-tax Officer to come to a different conclusion from that of his predecessor we think he is entitled to reopen the question. But if there are no fresh facts, it is difficult to see how he can arbitrarily go behind the finding of his predecessor. The same principles of natural justice or judicial dealing, which Courts impose upon Income-tax Officer, would pre- vent them capriciously setting aside the orders of their predecessors based on enquiry . That the Income-tax authorities in the year 1935-36 differed from the authorities in the previous year is clear as in 1934-35 it had been held that the debts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to him at that hearing by the assessee or his lawyer. There is nothing to show that these materials were before the authorities on the previous occasion. That the point was not free from difficulty appears to be clear. On the first occasion the Income-tax Officer had held that the debts had long since become bad, whereas his superiors, the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner had come to a different view. It is, therefore, not strange that when the matter is further investi- gated and fresh material produced the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner on the second occasion should have come to a different conclusion from that of their predecessors. As there were fresh materials on this second occasion, it cannot be said as a matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
