Skip to content


Kartar Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Amritsar. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 67 of 1974
Reported in[1978]111ITR184(P& H)
AppellantKartar Singh
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax, Amritsar.
Cases ReferredIn Sri Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income
Excerpt:
.....amended section 100-a of the code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal..........the assessee's appeal to the appellate assistant commissioner was dismissed. the income-tax appellate tribunal, however, set aside the order of assessment and remanded the matter back to the income-tax officer to estimate the income bearing in mind the value of the assets and liabilities at the commencement of the previous year and their value at the end of the previous year. after remand, the income-tax officer, while holding that the income of the assessee from its business of plying of trucks was rs. 99,494, made an addition of a sum of rs. 54,075, as income from 'unexplained investment'. the appellate assistant commissioner confirmed the order of the income-tax officer and so also the income-tax appellate tribunal. at the instance of the assessee, the following two questions.....
Judgment:

CHINNAPPA REDDY, ACTG. C.J. - For the assessment year 1959-60, the Income-tax Officer assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 99,494. The assessee's appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, set aside the order of assessment and remanded the matter back to the Income-tax Officer to estimate the income bearing in mind the value of the assets and liabilities at the commencement of the previous year and their value at the end of the previous year. After remand, the Income-tax Officer, while holding that the income of the assessee from its business of plying of trucks was Rs. 99,494, made an addition of a sum of Rs. 54,075, as income from 'unexplained investment'. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer and so also the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. At the instance of the assessee, the following two questions have been referred to us for our decision :

'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and keeping in view the order of the Tribunal dated 23rd May, 1963, which has since become final, the reassessment made at Rs. 1,48,062 could be assailed when the set-aside assessment stood at Rs. 99,494 ?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee could be given the benefits of intangible additions made in the earlier year to explain the addition of Rs. 54,075 made as unexplained investments ?'

It is not necessary for us to enter into a detailed discussion of the question raised in view of the fact that the addition of Rs. 54,075 made by the Income-tax Officer was from a new source and this he was not competent to do. In Sri Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax : [1952]22ITR502(Mad) , the learned judges observed that it would not be open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to introduce into the assessment new sources as his power of enhancement was restricted only to the income which was the subject-matter of consideration for purposes of assessment by the Income-tax Officer. We are of the view that on remand by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, it was not open to the Income-tax Officer to introduce into the assessment new sources of income so as to enhance the assessment. His power to enhance, if it existed, was confined to the old sources of income which were the subject-matter of the appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In that view, question No. 1 referred by the Tribunal is answered in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 does not arise. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //