9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber trees ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the manner and method of valuing rubber trees for the purpose of determining capital gains are right and justified?" The respondent-company is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The previous years ended on February 29, 1976, and February 28, 1,977, respectively. The assessee is engaged in rubber plantation industry. It sold substantial unyielding rubber trees in both the years. The sale proceeds for the year 1976-77 were Rs. 78,575. Similarly, for the year 1977-78, the trees were sold for Rs. 31,480. According to the assessee, no capital gains arose on the sale of the rubber trees, since as on January 1, 195 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal erred in concurring with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on that score. We are unable to accept the said plea. In disposing of the appeals filed by the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in the appellate order dated January 10, 1984, stated thus: ".....On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) followed the order of the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in I. T. A. Nos. 13 to 18 (Coch) of 1971-72 in the assessee's own case and held that the value realised on the sale of the rubber trees would be less than the value as on January 1, 1954, and, therefore, there would be no capital gains arising on the sale of the rubber trees . , . We do not see any reasons to take a different view from the one take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ata will not apply to income-tax proceedings, When a question of law or fact is decided in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, and the identical question comes up for consideration for A later year, the Appellate Tribunal will be justified in placing reliance on the earlier decision to base its conclusion, in the absence of any new material or change in circumstances or fresh look necessitated on existing facts on a closer and more intelligent analysis. None of these contigencies arises in this case: vide M. M, Ipoh v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 106, 118 (SC) and Annamalai Reddiar v.CIT [1964] 53 ITR 601 (Ker). In this perspective, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal had proper and sufficient materials before it, evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
