Decided on April 26,1982



D.S. Meenakshi Sundaram, Judicial Member - (1.) IN IT Reference No. 948 of 1975, the following question of law was referred to the Allahabad High Court: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the income derived by the Radha Swami Satsang, a religious institution, is entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the INcome-tax Act, 1961 ? By their Judgment dated 7-7-1980, their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court have answered the question in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. Now the matter comes up for passing an order under Section 260(1) of the INcome-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), conformably to the Judgment of their Lordships referred to above.
(2.) When the matter came up for hearing, Shri G.C. Sharma, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that though the decision of the High Court on the question referred to them, has gone against the assessee, still the alternative submission made by the assessee to the Tribunal at the time of original hearing of the appeals, remains to be considered and disposed of. In this connection, he invited our attention to paragraph 20 of the order of the Tribunal dated 24-8-1974, where the Tribunal held that in the view they had taken that even on an independent and fresh examination of the whole issue for the assessment years under consideration, the assessee is entitled to exemption, it was unnecessary to consider how far the assessee was justified in its argument based on 'estoppel'. He, therefore, submitted that the assessee's submission on the basis of the estoppel should be considered now and disposed of by the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel, the argument based on the ground of estoppel would be clear from ground No. 2 in all the three years, which is as follows : 2. Because the authorities below have been arbitrary and unjust in deviating from the past without any fresh evidence or record. The learned counsel next contended that he was pressing ground No. 1, read with ground No. 9, in the appeal for 1967-68, the corresponding grounds being ground Nos. 1 and 11 in the appeals for 1968-69 and 1969-70. These two grounds read as follows : 1. Because the refund claimed should have been allowed. 9. Because the assessment is bad in law. Shri G.C. Sharma, the learned counsel, submitted that the assessee had submitted applications foe refund along with returns of income for these three years and that these applications filed by the assessee for refund could not be converted by the ITO into proceedings for assessment of the total income of the assessee for these three assessment years. According to Shri Sharma this was a legal ground which should be decided now as this has not been withdrawn by the appellant specifically.
(3.) SHRI Sharma then argued that the A AC erred in sustaining the following additions which were made by the ITO to the income of the assessee : JUDGEMENT_1711_TLIT0_19820.htm According to the learned counsel, there was no basis for these additions made by the departmental authorities and that the same should be deleted, in case we do not agree with his submissions set out earlier. SHRI Sharma relied on the following three decisions in support of his contentions that grounds whick were not decided earlier by the Tribunal have to be decided by it while giving effect to the order of the High Court-CIT v. Hyderabad Deccan Liquor Syndicate [1974] 95 ITR 130 (AP) ; Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 462 (SC) and CIT v. Hanumanbux Inderchand [1980] 125 ITR 248 (Gauhati).;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.