Paripoornan, J.:— At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for the decision of this Court:
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in holding,—
(i) the value realised on the sale of rubber trees would be less than the value as on 1-1-1954?
(ii) there would be no capital gains arising on the sale of rubber 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?”
2. The respondent — Company is an assessee to Income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment years 1976–1977 and 1977–1978. The previous years ended on 29-2-1976 and 28-2-1977. The assessee is engaged in rubber plantation industry. It sold substantial unyielding rubber trees, for both the years. The sale proceeds for the year 1976–1977 was Rs. 78,575. Similarly, for the year 1977–1978, the trees were sold for Rs. 31,480/-. According to the assessee, no capital gains arose on the sale of rubber trees, since as on 1-1-1954 the value of the trees was more than the sale price. However, the Income tax Officer declined to accept the said plea and valued each tree as on 1-1-1954 at Rs. 14/- and computed the capital gains for both the years.
3. The capital gains, for the year 1976–1977, was arrived at Rs. 19,425/-, and Rs. 9,444/- for the year 1977–1978. In the appeals, the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) followed the order of the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, in the case of the very same assessee, rendered in, I.T.A Nos. 13 to 18 (Coch)/71-72 dated 30-11-1972 and held that the value realised on the sale of rubber trees will be less than the value as on 1-1-1954 and, therefore, there would be no capital gains arising on the sale of rubber trees. In the second appeals, filed by the Revenue, the Incometax Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (Appeals). The Tribunal held that no reason was made out to take a different view from the one taken in its order in ITA Nos. 13 to 18 (Coch)/71-72 in the assessee's own case which was followed by the CIT (Appeals). It is, thereafter, at the instance of the Revenue, the questions of law, formulated herein above, have been referred for the decision of this Court.
4. We heard counsel. Counsel for the Revenue argued that in this case the manner and method of valuing rubber trees adopted for the purpose of determining the capital gains were erroneous and the Incometax Appellate Tribunal erred in concurring with the CIT (Appeals) on that score. We are unable to accept the said plea. In disposing of the Appeals, filed by the Revenue, the Incometax Appeallate Tribunal, in the appellate order dated 10-1-1984, stated thus:
“………On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) followed the order of the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 13 to 18.Coch/71-72 in the assesses own case and held that the value realised on the sale of rubber trees would be less than the value as on 1-1-54 and therefor, there would be no capital gains arising on the sale of rubber trees ………………. We do not see any reasons to take a different view from the one taken in our order in ITA Nos. 13 to 18 (Coch)/71-72 in the, assessee's own case. In that order, the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that in 1955 rubber trees in the plantation of the assessee which were cut by the Kerala-Electricity Board ware valued by the Dist. Judge. Ernakulam at Rs. 81/- per tree. We therefore uphold the orders of the CIT (Appeals) for these two assessment years.”
5. The appellate order of the Tribunal dated 10-1-1984 has only, followed its earlier order rendered, in ITA Nos. 13 to 18.Coch/71-72 in the assessee's own case. The earlier order of the Tribunal does not form part of the paper book. The fact that the Tribunal has, in the assessee's own case, taken the view that the value realised on the sale of old rubber trees would be less than the value as on 1-1-1954, is not disputed and it is a relevant and cogent factor, that can be taken note of, when the assessmnet of a later year comes up for consideration before the CIT(A) or this Tribunal. Adverting to the earlier order passed by it, the Tribunal has stated that there is no reason to take a different view from the one taken earlier in I.T.A Nos. 13 to 18.Coch/71-72 No material was placed, either before the Tribunal or before us, nor any aspect stressed which will warrant to take a different view from the one taken by the Tribunal earlier in ITA Nos. 13 to 18.Coch/71-72. Though the principles of res judicata will not apply to Incometax 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 a fresh look necessitated on existing facts on a closer and more intelligent analysis. None of these contigencies arise in this case.— Vide M.M v. Ipoh C.I.T, (1968) 67 I.T.R 106 at p. 118 and Annamalai Reddiar C.I.T, (1964) 53 I.T.R 601 (Kerala). In this perspective, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal had proper and sufficient materials before it, evidenced by its own order in I.T.A Nos. 13 to/Coch/71-72, which has become final, and so was justified in concurring with the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) and in affirming that no capital gains arose on the sale of rubber trees by the assessee for the two assessment years.
6. In this view, we answer question No. 1(i) and (ii) in the affirmative — against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
7. No principles regarding the valuation of the rubber trees was either mooted or adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal. So, we are of the view that question No. 2, referred to us by the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, does not really arise out of the appellate order. We decline to answer question No. 2.
8. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this Court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.