GOWRI RAJES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above tax case references are at the instance of the assessees and they relate to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1973-74. THE following questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration :

(2.) THE assessees are individuals and they are co-owners of two estates, viz., Mohan and Peak Estate and Karapara Estate and, admittedly, the income derived from the estate was agriculture income. THEre were certain credits by way of interest received on money advanced to certain business concerns and the estate also seemed to have paid interest on its own borrowing. THE assessees' shares from the agricultural income were not admitted in the income-tax returns on the ground that debits of interest exceeded the credits and that net payment of interest alone came to be considered. THE Income-tax Officer, originally accepted the claim of each of the assessees for the assessment year 1973-74, but he later reopened the assessment invoking the provisions of Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act. THE assessees preferred separate appeals against the orders of reassessment on the ground that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and also on the merits of the case. THE first appellate authority did not agree with the contentions of the assessees and upheld the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment. He also upheld the inclusion of interest on the merits of the case. THE assessees carried the matter in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. THE Appellate Tribunal rejected the contention of the assessee on the question of jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment under Section 147(b) of the Act relying on the decision of the apex court in R. K. Malhotra, ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1977] 109 ITR 537, but, however, remitted the matter to the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment in accordance with certain directions given by it. THE Income tax Officer completed the assessments in pursuance of the directions of the Appellate Tribunal. THEre were appeals preferred by the assessees before the first appellate authority. THE assessees once again questioned the powers of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment on the basis of the later decision of the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996, and contended that the reopening of the assessments by the Income tax Officer was invalid and the officer lacked jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 147(b) of the Act. THE first appellate authority rejected the contention urged by the assessees which was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. THE assessees have challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal and the questions of law, earlier set out, have been referred to us. 3. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion in not permitting the assessee to reagitate the question regarding the jurisdiction of the officer to reopen the assessments which was already concluded against the assessee by an earlier order of the Appellate Tribunal. We have set out the facts in detail and the facts are clear that by the earlier order, the Appellate Tribunal had upheld the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment under Section 147(b) of the Act and that order of the Appellate Tribunal has become final, since the assessee has not filed any application either for reference or for rectification under Sections 254(2) or 256(1) of the Act and by the assessees' own conduct the earlier order of the Appellate Tribunal upholding the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment has become final. THErefore, it is neither permissible nor possible for the assessee to reagitate the question once again before the same forum in subsequent proceedings initiated on the basis of its earlier direction. This court in T. C. Nos. 1805 and 1806 of 1986--M. S. P. Senthil Kumar v. CIT [2000] 241 ITR 502, by judgment dated February 20, 1988, has taken a view that once the order has become final and unless its finality is disturbed by a manner known to law or permitted by the law, it is not open to the assessee to question the order of the Tribunal in a subsequent proceeding. We are of the opinion that the decision of this court rendered in the above tax case would apply to the facts of this case and it is not open to the assessees once again to challenge the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment before the Tribunal. THEre are four questions and the first question of law referred to us would suffice and that would cover all the aspects raised in all the four questions. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that all the four questions should be refrained and only the first question of law which is comprehensive and takes in all the aspects of the case is taken as the question referred to us in all the tax cases and we answer the question of law as reframed by us in all the tax cases in the affirmative and against the assessee.