AMARCHAND JALAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDINARILY we would not have written a judgment in dealing with these applications, but as a question has been raised on behalf of the Revenue that if there be a decision on a question of law by the Supreme Court of India then no more that question of law could be said to arise under sub - s. (2) of S. 66 of the Indian INCOME TAX ACT, 1922 (11 of 1922), hereinafter called the Act, we think it will be better to write a judgment.

(2.) THE question arises thus : The assessee before us is one Amarchand Jalan and the three applications relate to three different assessment years. The assessee is a member of a family known as Jalan family and the family owns a firm. Lokenath, Tolaram, Champalal, Dharamchand and Amarchand, the assessees before us, are brothers. In the books of account of the firm belonging to the Jalan family the following entries about gifts are made : Name of Donee Amount Date Name of Donor

(3.) MR . Joshi, the learned counsel for the Revenue, contends that the entire argument on behalf of the assessee advanced before the Tribunal was founded on a decision in C. M. Kothari vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 317 (Mad) : TC 42R.838. That decision has been overruled by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. C. M. Kothari (1963) 49 ITR 107 (SC) : TC 20R.249. There being thus an authoritative decision by the Supreme Court on the question of law said to be arising in that case, now no more the same question of law could be said to be arise in this case within the meaning of Sub -S. (2) of s. 66 of the Act. It is the argument of Mr. Joshi that once a particular question of law has been decided by the Supreme Court, then no more thereafter that question of law could be said to arise within the meaning of Sub -S. (2) of S. 66 of the Act. He has referred us to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1962 and in State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Ganga Singh AIR 1960 SC 356. He has also referred us to a decision of this Court, Mangaldas N. Verma vs. CIT (1954) 25 ITR 175 (Bom) : TC54R.609 and a decision of the Nagpur High Court, Mathuraprasad Motilal vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 695 (Nag) : TC54R.609.