ANNAMMA PAUL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has forwarded the statement of the case and sent up the following questions of law for our opinion, namely :

(2.) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that (in I.T.A. No. 12037 of 1959-60) they (the Tribunal) have rejected the assessee's claim that intangible addition of Rs. 48,000 for the year 1948-49 was available for set-off in 1950-51 is justified in law ? Is the interpretation placed on the earlier order of the Tribunal dated November 21, 1961, proper and valid ?

(3.) THIS court considered the decisions of the Madras High Court in Kuppuswami's case [1964] 51 ITR 757 and Abdul Qadir's case [1964] 52 ITR 364 and stated that although some of the observations in the decisions would appear to support the contention urged by the assessee in those cases, those observations have to be understood against the background of the facts and circumstances disclosed. The Division Bench was unable to regard the Madras decisions as laying down any general principle that in all cases where an addition had been made to the income of the assessee in making the assessment for an earlier year, the amount- so added should be presumed to be available to the assessee during the subsequent years. The Division Bench then referred with approval to the previous ruling of this court in M.I. Chakkoru v. CIT [ITR No. 61 of 1965--since reported in [1980] 121 ITR 440 (Ker) (Appendix) infra] and recorded complete agreement with the principle of that decision. The principle approved was stated thus :