Judgment 1. In a reference under Sec.256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench A, Patna, has submitted a statement of the case and sought the opinion of this court on the following question : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was correct in law in excluding the income of the Rajmahal business from the total income of the asses see-firm by holding that the said business belonged to Vasudeo Agarwalla as proprietary concern ? " 2. The relevant facts of the case as borne out by the record are these. While completing the assessment of M/s. Standard Mercantile Co., Kankerbagh Road, Patna, the ITO included the income from the sand and china clay business conducted at Rajmahal in the district of Santhal Parganas in the name of Standard Mercantile Co., Rajmahal. According to the assessee-firm, this business exclusively belonged to Sri Vasudeo Agarwalla, a partner of the assessee-firm. The ITO found that the assessee had declared that business as a branch of this firm before the Sales tax Department. The ITO also found that the entire finance for running that business at Rajmahal had gone from the books of the assessee-firm through the capital account of the aforementioned Vasudeo Agarwalla. The income from the Rajmahal business was, therefore, included in the hands of the assessee-firm. The orders of the ITO for the three assessment years in question, namely, 1963-64 to 1965-66, have been made annexures A, A-1 and A-2 to the statement of the case. 3. The assessee appealed to the AAC, who affirmed the findings of the ITO, on the same ground which had led the latter to make such an addition. The orders of the AAC find place at annexures B and B-1 to the statement of the case. 4. The assessee pursued the matter further and appealed to the Appellate Tribunal. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the Rajmahal business was being carried on by Vasudeo Agarwalla alone and he was meeting all the finances of the business by withdrawing money from his capital account in the firm. Further submission was that the affairs of the assessee-firm were also being looked after by Vasudeo Agarwalla at Patna. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the Rajmahal business was being carried on by Vasudeo Agarwalla alone and he was meeting all the finances of the business by withdrawing money from his capital account in the firm. Further submission was that the affairs of the assessee-firm were also being looked after by Vasudeo Agarwalla at Patna. As was urged before the ITO and the AAC, it was further urged before the Tribunal that Sri Vasudeo Agarwalla wanted the sales tax matter to be attended to at Patna itself and he was also anxious to have the sales tax matter relating to his business at Rajmahal dealt with by the sales tax authorities at Patna in order to save him from the tedious journey from Patna to Rajmahal on every date of hearing. The only idea was to have the convenience of attending to the sales tax matters both with regard to the firm and with regard to his personal business. It was further contended that there was no account for Rajmahal business in the books of the assessee-firm and it was only Vasudeo Agarwalla who was interested as the owner and proprietor of the business at Rajmahal and it was his separate account with the firm from which all funds had gone to the Rajmahal business. It was also contended that after March 31, 1967, even the sales tax authorities treated the Rajmahal business as being a separate entity of Vasudeo Agarwalla alone and not a business carried on by the assessee-firm. An additional argument was put forth that the firm had nothing to gain by putting up the case that the Rajmahal business belonged to one of the partners only, namely, Vasudeo Agarwalla, aforesaid. 5. The Tribunal considered the arguments put forth on behalf of the assessee as well as of the Revenue and came to the conclusion that the declaration before the sales tax authorities was made in a particular context for a specific purpose. The Tribunal further found that the finances of Rajmahal business had gone from a separate capital account of Sri Vasudeo Agarwalla and no other partner of the assessee-firm had financed any funds for that business in any manner. The Tribunal further found that the finances of Rajmahal business had gone from a separate capital account of Sri Vasudeo Agarwalla and no other partner of the assessee-firm had financed any funds for that business in any manner. The Tribunal also found that there were materials to indicate that the firm had no financial interest in the Rajmahal business at all nor was it partaking of any profit out of that business. The Tribunal held also that the income-tax assessment had been made in the hands of Vasudeo Agarwalla in respect of the Rajmahal business. Considering all the circumstances, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Rajmahal business belonged to Sri Vasudeo Agarwalla and should be assessed in his hands only. The inclusion of that income in the hands of the firm was, therefore, deleted. The orders of the Tribunal have been marked as annexures C and C-1 to the statement of the case. 6. The learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue contended that the Tribunal was not correct in law in deleting the income from Rajmahal business from the assessment of the assessee-firm because Vasudeo Agarwalla himself having made a statement before the Department of Commercial Taxes to the effect that the Rajmahal business should be assessed at Patna since it was a business run by the firm itself, was estopped from turning round and saying that the Rajmahal business was exclusively his own and not a business run by the assessee-firm. He placed reliance upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of New India Colour Co. V/s. CIT [1971] 80 ITR 206, and a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Addanki Narayanappa V/s. Bhaskara Krishnappa, AIR 1966 SC 1300 . None of these two decisions lay down the principle of law as canvassed by the learned senior standing counsel. No question of estoppel or res judicata arises in matters of taxation even before the same Department for different assessment years, much less any statement made for individual gain or personal benefit and for a specific purpose in a particular context before another Department. The Tribunal has given very cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the Rajmahal business belonged exclusively to Vasudeo Agarwalla and not to the assessee-firm. The Tribunal has given very cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the Rajmahal business belonged exclusively to Vasudeo Agarwalla and not to the assessee-firm. Three main reasons which have weighed with the Tribunal are : (1) all the investments made in the Rajmahal business had come from the separate and exclusive account of Vasudeo Agarwalla with the firm and that too presumably with the consent of all the partners; (2) no profit of the Rajmahal business was being shared by any other partner of the firm, and (3) the Commercial Taxes Department had itself refused subsequently to treat the Rajmahal business as a business run by the assessee-firm and insisted upon assessing Vasudeo Agarwalla at Rajmahal itself. There is no perversity in the order of the Tribunal nor can it be said by any reasonable person that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse. We do not find any error of law committed by the Tribunal which may induce us to hold that the order is illegal. 7. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative and hold that the Tribunal was correct in law in excluding the income of the Rajmahal business from the total income of the assessee-firm by holding that the said business belonged to Vasudeo Agarwalla as a proprietary concern. The assessee shall be entitled to its costs. Hearing fee Rs. 250 only.