Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)Section 11 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Karnani Properties Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Bengal on 27 August, 1971
In a proceeding before the High Court under Section 256, there exists a lis between the assessee on the one side and the Revenue on the other and the High Court dealing with the question of law is a court having power and authority of law to decide the issues. That is not the case with the proceedings for assessment before the income-tax authorities. In proceedings before the said authorities, there is no lis. The decision in the proceeding under Section 256 would operate as res judicata, provided the said decision pertains to matters which are of a fundamental nature, for example, where the question relating to assessment does not vary with the income every year but depends on the nature of the property or any other question on which the rights of parties to be taxed are based, for instance, whether or not the property belongs to the assessee and which has nothing to do with the fluctuations of income. It shall not, however, be understood that we are of the view that Section 11, C. P. C., would govern the said proceedings. Whether or not Section 11, C. P. C., applies, we are of the view that the plea of res judicata on general principles can successfully be taken in respect of such judgments because such judgments are delivered in exercise of the special jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Raj Lakshmi Dasi And Others vs Banamali Sen And Othersbholanath Sen ... on 27 October, 1952
In other words, the rule of constructive res judicata, though in a sense a somewhat technical or artificial rule, can be taken in respect of judgments in proceedings under Section 256 because the judgment is rendered by a court of exclusive jurisdiction (vide Raj Lakshmi Dasi's case, AIR 1953 SC 33); not only that, the High Court which renders the judgment is a court of record. However, this rule will not apply to a case where the party against whom this rule is sought to be applied had no need to challenge the findings the Tribunal enters in the order disposing of the appeal and which can be put against him in later proceedings, on account of the fact that the ultimate verdict in the appeal was in his favour. Applying this principle to the facts of this case, we are of the view that inasmuch as the assessee failed to challenge the finding (which he ought to have challenged) by getting an appropriate question referred to this court for opinion, namely, whether the finding that the properties in dispute belonged to the firm, entered by the Tribunal while disposing of the appeals relating to the years of assessment 1973-74 and 1974-75, the said finding must be held to operate as constructive res judicata barring the assessee from raking up the said dispute in proceedings for assessment for subsequent years.
S. Murugappa Chettiar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 25 June, 1982
4. A reference in this connection to the judgment in I. T. R. Nos. 3 and 4 of 1979 is profitable (see Murugappa Chettiar v. CIT [1992] 197 ITR 586 (Ker) (Appx.)). It could be seen from this judgment that the Tribunal in fact had found that the assets in dispute had been treated as assets of the partnership although Clause (2) of the partnership agreement had provided that these assets would continue to be the exclusive property of the assessee. We shall, in this connection, extract the following observation from the judgment (at page 587) :
Section 116 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Daryao And Others vs The State Of U. P. And Others(And ... on 27 March, 1961
12. Referring to this decision, the Supreme Court, in a--later decision in Daryao v. State of U. P., AIR 1961 SC 1457, observed (at page 1463) :
Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. & Anr vs Janapada Sabha Chhindwara on 24 September, 1962
9. It is now settled law that the decisions on questions of income-tax and rating assessments constitute an important exception to the general rules as to res, judicata and as such decisions given in regard to one year's tax or rates do not give rise to estoppel binding the parties in respect of another year's tax or rates. It is so, because, such decisions by the income-tax authorities (within the meaning of Section 116 of the Income-tax Act) are made at an administrative level in that they are not made by a court or a Tribunal in a lis between two parties. Yet another reason that should be borne in mind in this context is that the question of the liability of the taxpayer for the subsequent year's tax or rate is not to be regarded as the same question as that of his liability for the first. Taxation and rating assessments are decisions "sui generis" to which the principles ordinarily governing judgments inter partes are not applicable. It, therefore, follows that the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by record does not apply to the decisions of the income-tax authorities since they are not courts ; that means, a finding or a decision of an income-tax authority in one year can be departed from in a subsequent year. In other words, to the decisions of the income-tax authorities cannot be attributed that finality which is needed to set up the estoppel per rem judicatum that arises in certain contexts from legal judgments by courts of competent jurisdiction. In the same strain, the apex court also has spoken. (See Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. v. Janapada Sabha Chhindwara, AIR 1964 SC 1013 and Devilal Modi v. STO, AIR 1965 SC 1150 ; [1965] 16 STC 303).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Shri Agastyar Trust on 1 November, 1983
10. Counsel for the Revenue, however, argued that judgments of the High Courts on reference determining issues of a fundamental nature (as illustrated in the opening arguments, he submits) would operate as res judicata. In support of this argument, counsel cited the following rulings : Sankaralinga Nadar (T. M. M.) and Bros. v. CIT [1929] 4 ITC 226 (Mad) ; Hoystead v. Commissioners of Taxation [1926] AC 155 (PC) and CIT v. Shri Agastyar Trust [1984] 149 ITR 609 (Mad). Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, contended that such decisions would not operate as res judicata in the proceedings for assessment in subsequent years because they are made in the exercise of advisory jurisdiction.