Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. He also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540. In that case, the assessee purchased certain house property on September 30, 1940, for Rs. 1,85,000. During the assessment for the assessment year 1942-43, the assessee claimed that the income from the property should not be taxed in his hands and in support thereof, he produced the deed of conveyance. The Tribunal rejected his claim leaving it open to the assessee to establish his case in subsequent assessment proceedings. During the assessment years 1942-43 to 1957-58, the income from those premises was assessed in his hands and for the subsequent two years, the assessee revived his plea and the Tribunal again rejected it, holding that the recitals were make-believe statements. On a reference to the High Court, it was held that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the property was not trust property. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court on the ground that it could not be said that the finding of the Tribunal as to the unreality of the trust was not based on any evidence or was otherwise vitiated. It was further observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that though it was proved that neither the principle of res judicata nor the rule of estoppel was applicable to assessment proceedings, the fact that the assessee included the income of the premises in his returns for several years, after objecting to its inclusion in the year 1942-43, was a circumstance which the taxing authorities were entitled to take into consideration in the absence of any specific explanation, and it was also observed that no question of law arose out of the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the house proyerty was not trust property. It may be mentioned that their Lordships of the Supreme Court proceeded to consider the question as to whether the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal is in any way vitiated and it was held that it is not in any way vitiated and so no question of law arises. Reference was also made to the decision of the Madras High Courtin CIT v. Shri Agastyar Trust [1984] 149 ITR 609. In that case, it was observed that the principle of estoppel or res judicata cannot strictly apply to the decisions rendered in proceedings under the Income-tax Act, on a reference, they have a binding effect both on the assessee as well as on the Revenue, if the point on which the decision has been given is the same. It is well established that the decision on the question as to whether a certain trust is charitable or not, has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income and that such questions, if decided by a court on a reference made to it, would be res judicata and the same question cannot be subsequently reagitated. It may be stated that in that case, this question was already considered by the Supreme Court as to whether the assessee would be entitled to exemption under Section 4(3) of the 1922 Act in East India Industries (Madras) P. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 611, wherein the claim for deduction of the donation made to the assessee-trust was rejected by the Supreme Court on the ground that the assessee-trust could not be held to be entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 4(3) because some of the objects of the trust were not charitable and the trustees had discretion to spend the income of the trust on charitable and non-charitable objects. It may be stated that the matter turns on the finding already arrived at by the Supreme Court as to whether the trust in question is a charitable one or not and so the question of exemption was based on the previous findings regarding the nature of the trust.