DWARKA PRASAD SHEOKARAN DAS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act in which the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions for our decision:

(2.) THE assesses in this case is a firm consisting of four partners. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1943-44, the Income-tax Officer held that income to the extent of Rs. 17,815/15/3 had been concealed by the assessee in his returns and added this sum when calculating the income liable to be assessed to tax. On 9-11-1944, the Income-tax Officer also issued a notice under Section 28(1)(c), Income-tax Act calling upon the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be levied against him. THE assessee, on 16-11-1944, gave his explanation but no fresh evidence was adduced in support of this explanation. THE Income-tax Officer considered his own previous finding during the assessment proceedings and held that there had been concealment of income and imposed the maximum penalty permissible under Section 28. THE assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal but failed and on his request the two questions mentioned above have now been referred for our decision.

(3.) ON the second question the principle has been so frequently laid down that it does not appear to be necessary to enter into any detailed discussion. The Income-tax Officer is not a Court and no question arises of a previous decision operating as 'res judicata' in subsequent proceedings before the Income-tax Officer. The principle of 'res judicata' is only applicable to suits where there are two parties coming up before a Court for adjudication of their disputes and not to the proceedings for assessment or imposition of penalty under the Income-tax Act. This principle was clearly enunciated by one of us in the case of -- 'Kamlapat Motilal v. Commr. of Income-tax, U. P.', AIR 1950 All 249 (A). It has also been laid down by various other High Courts, but since we are following the view which, has already been taken in this Court it is not necessary to cite those cases.