V.K. Singhal, J. - (1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law arising out of its order dated October 21, 1980, in respect of the assessment years 1965-66 to 1974-75 : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in interpreting the gift deed dated September 9, 1938, that the immovable property known as Barwara House was gifted to the late Raja Mansingh and not to his Hindu undivided family ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in including the value of Barwara House in the net wealth of the assessee in his individual status ?"
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his returns in the status of individual. After the death of the assessee, the legal representatives of the assessee submitted revised returns and excluded the value of the property known as Barwara House located at Civil Lines, Jaipur. THE returns under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, were filed declaring the said property as owned by the Hindu undivided family. Earlier, this matter came up for consideration before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the assessment years 1957-58 to 1964-65 when the matter was examined in detail. The property was gifted to the assessee by the Maharaja of Jaipur on September 9, 1938. In the document executed, it was mentioned that the donee and his heirs can enjoy the property from generation to generation without any interference. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that the gift was to the assessee in his individual capacity and it was not revocable. It was also found that the assessee had been effecting alienation of this property and even gifted portions of the same to his sons and, in these circumstances, it was held that the property did not belong to the family, otherwise, it could not have been gifted to the sons. It was contended before the Tribunal that, in 1940, certain limitations were placed on the right of alienation over such properties by the donees and, therefore, the gifts were void and ineffective and should be ignored. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the notification issued in 1940 or thereafter could not affect the full ownership right of the assessee over the property. The conduct of the assessee in the subsequent treatment of the property was also taken into consideration from which it was found that he treated himself as its full owner. Earlier to these proceedings, the matter was remanded by the Tribunal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to examine whether the gifts were invalid as the property is alleged to be belonging to the Hindu undivided family. When the matter went before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee withdrew the plea regarding the validity of the gift. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the property belonged to the individual and not to the Hindu undivided family and the appeal was accordingly dismissed. This order has become final and has not been challenged before this court. Thereafter, in respect of the assessment years 1965-66 to 1974-75 as stated above, the matter was again agitated before the Wealth-tax Officer by filing revised returns of the individual by excluding the property and fresh returns of the Hindu undivided family showing the property as belonging to the Hindu undivided family. It was held that the property belonged to the assessee in his individual capacity and that he was the full owner of it and accordingly the valuation was included in his wealth. The matter was challenged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner where, relying upon the earlier decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated February 19, 1972, it was held that the "Barwara House" received in gift by the deceased appellant on September 9, 1938, belonged to him in his individual capacity and not to the Hindu undivided family. In the second appeal before the Tribunal, it was held that the Tribunal has considered the gift deed and has passed a contrary order on February 19, 1972, and there is no new material on the basis of which the said judgment could be reviewed. It was held that the proper status of the assessee is that of an individual and the assessee has rightly been taxed in that status.
(3.) THE submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1964-65 dated February 19, 1972, does not operate as res judicata as it is not a court of competent jurisdiction and is only a departmental authority. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in Kamlapat Motilal v. CIT [1950] 18 ITR 812 (All) and Chiranji Lal Ramji Dass v. ITO [1978] 115 ITR 842 (Delhi). We have considered the matter. There can be circumstances where the cause of action is different or the subject-matter is different or there may be a change in the circumstances and in these cases, the doctrine of res judicata would not apply but the point which has to be considered is when a particular issue has attained finality and no different facts have been pointed out, can the assessee be allowed to reagitate the same issues particularly when in respect of eight continuous years the adverse order given by the Tribunal has been accepted and no reference was filed in the High Court. The principles for finality of judgments are applicable and the Tribunal was bound by its earlier decision and could not have taken a contrary decision in respect of the same set of facts and circumstances of the same assessee. The decision given by this court in Sardar Kehar Singh v. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 769 has full application because of the previous order of the Tribunal which has become final and, therefore, the Tribunal could not have taken a view different from that it had taken earlier. ;