TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gust 19, 1987, finding that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer has failed to decide the income in terms of section 4(1)(b) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal directed the assessing authority to consider the entire case afresh in accordance with law and in view of the observations made therein. Subsequently, in respect of the years 1977-78 to 1981-82, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in appeal, set aside similar orders of assessment for the years 1977-78 to 1981-82 and directed the assessing authority to dispose of the matter afresh in view of exhibit P-1 order of the Tribunal. As far as the year 1984-85 is concerned, the officer passed an assessment order rejecting the exemption claimed by the petitioner under section 4(1)(b) of the Act. The exhibit P-4 is the order of assessment in respect of the said year. Though the assessee filed an appeal against the said order, it was dismissed as per exhibit P-5. Exhibits P-4 and P-5, orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are challenged in this writ petition. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for the respondents. The petitioner claims that it is a religious and charitable institutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : "By that order the respondent virtually refused to carry out the directions which a superior tribunal has given to him in exercise of its appellate powers in respect of an order of assessment made by him. Such refusal is in effect a denial of justice, and is further more destructive of one of the basic principles in the administration of justice based as it is in this country on a hierarchy of courts. If a subordinate tribunal refuses to carry out directions given to it by a superior tribunal in the exercise of its appellate powers, the result will be chaos in the administration of justice and we have indeed found it very difficult to appreciate the process of reasoning by which the learned judicial Commissioner while roundly condemning the respondent for refusing to carry out the directions of the superior tribunal, yet held that no manifest injustice resulted from such refusal." This decision came up for consideration before the same court subsequently in Tobacco Manufacturers (India) Ltd. v. CST [1961] 12 STC 87; [1961] AIR 1961 SC 402. There, the Supreme Court while adopting the rule laid down in Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd.'s case [1960] 40 ITR 618 (SC) further held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es judicata will apply to the facts of this case. Since the Agricultural Income-tax Officer is not a court, the doctrine of re judicata or estoppel by record does not apply to his decision; a finding or a decision of the agricultural income-tax authorities in one year may be departed from in a subsequent year. This question is no longer res integra in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 137 and M. M. Ipoh v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 106. The Supreme Court in M. M. Ipoh's case [1968] 67 ITR 106 observed : "The doctrine of res judicata does not apply so as to make a decision on a question of fact or law in a proceeding for assessment in one year binding in another year. The assessment and the facts found are conclusive only in the year of assessment; the findings on questions of fact may be good and cogent evidence in subsequent years, when the same question falls to be determined in another year, but they are not binding and conclusive." The question that is relevant in this case is whether the findings and observations made by the Tribunal in respect of the year 1974-75 will apply in respect of the year 1984-85 which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment order and exhibit P-5 order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner are liable to be interfered with in this case. I have already found that there is a manifest injustice in refusing to comply with the direction of the Tribunal contained in exhibit P-1. Exhibits P-4 and P-5 have been passed by the respective authorities without considering the "cogent piece of evidence", namely, exhibits P-1 and P-2 orders, available in this case. That the availability of exhibits P-1 and P-2 orders in support of the contention of the petitioner was specifically brought to the notice of the first respondent as per exhibit P-3 objection filed against the pre-assessment notice dated January 20, 1990, in respect of the year 1984-85. The observations contained in exhibit P-5 cannot be said to be correct in the absence of de novo consideration of the entire matter pursuant to exhibit P-1 order of the Tribunal. The second respondent is legally bound to adopt exhibit P-1 as a "cogent piece of evidence". If the observations contained in exhibit P-1 are followed, exhibits P-4 and P-5 could not have been passed by the first respondent in the manner it has been done. It is pointed out that as again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
