KERALA HIGH COURT

                                        Commissioner of Income Tax

                                                         Vs

                                               K George Thomas

                                                 (V.V. Kamat, J.)

                                                   27.06.1996

                                                 JUDGEMENT

V.V. Kamat, J.

( 1. ) IT appears that learned counsel has filed a memo stating that the assessee, Dr. K. George
Thomas, expired leaving behind him a will appointing Mr. M. P. Govindati Nair, advocate, as
executor, thereunder with a consequential request that the said executor be brought on record. We
have already heard Shri P. Balachandran, learned advocate, not only in these references but also
in regard to the necessity of amendment of the record for the purposes of these proceedings by
showing the name of Shri M. P. Govindan Nair, advocate, as the executor of the will. Since we
are not disturbing the order of the Tribunal and in view of the position that the appearance of Shri
P. Balachandran continues for the purpose of amendment of record, the record be amended
accordingly by showing Shri M. P. Govindan Nair, advocate, as the executor of the will of the
deceased, Dr. K. George Thomas, the assessee. IT is made clear that this is for the purposes of
these reference proceedings in regard to which what is required is consequential amendment of
the record. We grant the same memo in all these references and proceed to decide them. The
following three questions expect our answer : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and facts in finding that the amounts are not to be
included in the total income of the assessee ?

( 2. ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in
coming to the conclusion that no materials have been brought out for the assessment years to
show that the amounts have been utilised for the business activities of the assessee ? Whether, on
the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in rejecting the
contention of the Revenue, that the issue has, already been decided by the High Court in favour
of the Department ?" 2. These references are identical in all respects to I. T. R. No. 181 of 1991
decided by us by the earlier judgment. The only difference is that the assessment years involved
are different and they are 1968-69, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. In regard to these
years also the remittances in the name of Indian Gospel Mission are received and credited in the
Indian Overseas Bank, Kottayam. Remittances are received through Indian Christian Crusade, U.
S. A. The Tribunal has also decided that these remittances with regard to the assessment years in
question could not be included in the total income of the assessee during the years in question.
The assessee, Dr. K. George Thomas, is also the same. 3. Therefore, our decision in I. T. R. No.
181 of 1991 would operate as the decision of these references. The questions, therefore, are
answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee. A copy of this
judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for passing consequential orders. ;