TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1972 (4) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ? and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the investments represent the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources for the assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56 ? " The father of the assessee died leaving an estate to be assessed under the Estate Duty Act. Some investments in the name of the assessee were claimed in those proceedings as investments made by the assessee with his funds and not investments made by the father with the father's funds. And this was accepted by the revenue in those proceedings. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer started proceedings under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act and assessed the assessee for Rs. 52,378 and Rs. 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in detail, looked into the definite explanation given, and the evidence produced, by the assessee and came to the conclusion that " it is a hard fact to face that the investments ultimately retained of Rs. 52,378 and Rs. 14,490 would in fact be covered by the funds provided by the appellant's father. This is a fact admitted by the Income-tax Officer himself in his remand report of March 11, 1969, and the earlier report dated August 14, 1967. In these circumstances, the investments cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the appellant in 1954-55 and 1955-56 assessment years. " The revenue appealed ; and in the appeals, the revenue reiterated its plea of estoppel against the assessee. The revenue contended that, after making allowance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt has held that if an assessee has obtained a benefit by making a certain representation to the taxing authorities, he cannot be permitted to deny the truth of the representation at a later stage. Yet another decision cited is again of the Bombay High Court in In re Trikamalal Maneklal. The question there was whether a particular deduction claimed was allowable under section 12(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act ; and on this question, the Tribunal held that the deduction was allowable and then remanded the case to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for verifying the entries in the balance-sheet. There was no reference against that remand order ; and ultimately against the order passed after the remand, another appeal was taken before the T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. If the Tribunal does not dispose of the appeal and keeps seisin of it when it remands the case (in other words, if the remand is only in the nature of calling for a finding), then it may be permissible for the Tribunal to reconsider a view expressed by it in the remand order when the appeal is heard after the remand order is complied with (when the finding is received). On the other hand, if the Tribunal disposes of the appeal and remands the case to the authorities below, then, when another appeal comes before the Tribunal against the order passed after the remand, the Tribunal has no power to reconsider the finding or opinion expressed by it before the remand (in other words, questions which have become final and concluded by the reman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion is binding between the parties in the said assessment and neither of them will be allowed to question it or reopen it in another appeal before the Tribunal. Applying these principles, it is clear that the Tribunal should not have relied upon the principle of estoppel or held that the assessee was barred by estoppel or pinned the assessee down to his earlier statement. On the earlier occasion, estoppel was pleaded by the revenue and that plea was repelled by the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to hear the explanation of the assessee and come to a conclusion on the evidence bearing on the point. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner investigated the matter, considered the explanation and evidence an....