Deb, J. - (1.) The following question of law is involved in this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal Was right in holding that in the appeals preferred by the assessee against the fresh, assessments made according to the directions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee could be allowed to raise a new. ground which had not been raised in the appeals filed against the original assessments which had been set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of the assessment years 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1950-51 ?"
(2.) The assessee is a jute milling company. Its accounting year ends on 31st March each year. The original assessments were made on February 11, 1953, January 3, 1964, and December 30, 1964, respectively, for the aforesaid three years, but those orders were set aside on appeal with a direction on the Income-tax Officer to make fresh assessments and accordingly he has made fresh assessments. On appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it was contended by the assessee for the first time, that the sale proceeds of loom hours were not its revenue receipts and, therefore, could not be brought to tax. These proceeds were included in the assessee's total income in the original as well as in the fresh assessments because the assessee did not make any such claim before the Income-tax Officer.
(3.) Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. in support of the above claim. It was contended by the department that the assessee should not be allowed to take this new plea, but it was rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who, by following the above decision of the Supreme Court, held that the sale proceeds of loom hours were not revenue but capital receipts and were assessable as capital gains.;