Ranbir Raj Kapoor vs Income-Tax Officer on 8 January, 1988
Against this order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the present appeal is filed and the question is, whether what was repaid on 'hundi loan' could be treated as the income of the assessee or not. Arguments were addressed to us quite elaborately by Shri S.A. Joshi, for the assessee, Shri Y.P. Trivedi as an Intervener and Shri S.C. Tewari for the revenue. After considering the arguments, addressed to us and also considering the case law relied upon by them and also going through the decision of the Tribunal given on the subject, we are of the opinion that the decision given in the case of Second ITO v. Grahalakshmi & Co. [1982] 2 ITD 420 by the Madras Bench does not require any reconsideration by us. When we say this, we do not mean to say that under the Law, we are empowered to re-consider a decision given by a Division Bench with a view or so as to overrule it, but we do feel that in a larger Bench, we are entitled to consider the question again in the light of the new developments either in the sphere of Law, or in the realm of facts and then come to a fresh conclusion which may be in accordance with the earlier views or opposite to it. Having considered the legal position and the facts in this light, we say that the opinion expressed by the learned Bench in the case of Grahalakshmi & Co. (supra) and followed by another Bench of the Madras in the case of Fifth ITO v. K.A. Khader Sons [1983] 6 ITD 65, do appear to us to be stating the correct position in law in regard to 'hundis'.