Same assessee, identical facts: earlier view followed on HUF status and capital receipt treatment

Earlier decisions on the same assessee and identical facts were followed because no distinguishing material was shown, so the assessee's status was treated as a Hindu undivided family. On the same reasoning, the ad interim payment was characterised as capital in nature rather than revenue receipt, and therefore not taxable in the assessee's hands. The stated ratio is that where identical issues concerning the same assessee have already been decided on the same facts, the earlier view may be applied unless the character of the receipt is shown to be different.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's status was correctly determined as a Hindu undivided family; and (ii) whether the ad interim payment was a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt, and therefore not taxable.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's status was correctly determined as a Hindu undivided family.

Analysis: The reference concerned the same assessee and identical questions that had already been decided by earlier decisions of the Court. No distinguishing facts were brought to show any reason to depart from the settled view.

Conclusion: The status of the assessee as a Hindu undivided family was correctly determined, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the ad interim payment was a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt, and therefore not taxable.

Analysis: Following the earlier binding view on the same assessee and on identical facts, the payment in question was treated as capital in nature and not as income chargeable to tax.

Conclusion: The ad interim payment was a capital receipt, not a revenue receipt, and was not taxable in the hands of the assessee, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The referred questions were answered for the assessee, and the Revenue did not succeed on either issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where identical issues concerning the same assessee have already been decided on the same facts, the Court may follow the earlier view and treat the receipt in question as capital rather than revenue if its character is not shown to be different.

---