Remittances credited in the assessee's name were excluded from total income, following an earlier connected decision on the same facts.

Remittances credited in the assessee's name were held not includible in total income for the relevant assessment years because the Tribunal found no material showing that they were used for the assessee's business activities, and the same remittances had already been considered in an earlier connected reference on the same factual pattern. The High Court held that its earlier decision governed the present references, rejected the Revenue's attempt to distinguish the matter, and sustained the Tribunal's exclusion of the amounts from total income. The questions referred were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the remittances credited in the assessee's name were includible in the total income for the relevant assessment years and whether there was material to show that they had been utilised for the assessee's business activities; (ii) whether the Revenue's contention that the issue had already been decided by the High Court in its favour could be accepted.

Issue (i): Whether the remittances credited in the assessee's name were includible in the total income for the relevant assessment years and whether there was material to show that they had been utilised for the assessee's business activities.

Analysis: The references were stated to be identical to an earlier reference already decided by the Court. The same remittances in the name of Indian Gospel Mission were received through Indian Christian Crusade, U.S.A., credited in the Indian Overseas Bank, Kottayam, and the Tribunal had held that they could not be included in the assessee's total income for the years in question.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue's contention that the issue had already been decided by the High Court in its favour could be accepted.

Analysis: The Court held that its earlier decision in the connected reference governed the present references as well, which involved the same assessee and the same factual pattern, though for different assessment years.

Conclusion: The Revenue's contention was rejected and the matter was held to be covered by the earlier decision in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The questions referred were answered in the affirmative and the Tribunal's view excluding the amounts from the assessee's total income was sustained, resulting in a decision for the assessee and against the Revenue.

---