Director Of Income-Tax ... vs Dharm Pratisthanam
1998 Latest Caselaw 561 Del

JUDGMENT

1. Arrival of counsel for the respondent was awaited up to 12.25 p.m. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the particulars referred to in the last order are not available with the Department and, therefore, in terms of the last order, the matter is taken up for hearing finally.

2. Perused the contents of paragraph 7 of the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an identical issue is arising for decision in several other matters, though in the case at hand the issue was not pursued further by filing a reference relevant to the assessment year 1985-86, yet the right of the petitioner to move this court for the next year of assessment, i.e., 1986-87, is not taken away inasmuch as every year's assessment proceeding is an independent proceeding in the eye of law and the rule of res judicata is not in terms applicable to the tax assessment proceedings, (see CIT v. M. Chawla, [1989] 177 ITR 299 (Delhi))

3. As the question which is sought to be referred is a question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal is directed to draw the statement of case and refer the following question for the opinion of the High Court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the voluntary contributions are not to be taxed as income notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2(24)(ii)(a) of the Act ?"

4. No order as to costs.