Judgment

VENKATACHALIAH, J.

( 1 ) THESE assessees appeals, by certificate, arise out of the judgment and order dated 2-3-1973 of the Allahabad High Court in I. T. R. No. 721 of 1970 answering certain questions of law referred for the opinion of the High Court against the assessee.

( 2 ) THE assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The assessment years are 1954-55, 1960-61 and 1961-62. The principal controversy in these appeals pertains to the allowance of and deduction for repairs in respect of a house property at Delhi leased out to the Chinese Embassy under a deed of lease dated 30-5-1952.

ORIGINALLY assessments were completed including therein the annual letting value of this property at Rs. 36,000. 00 and allowing a deduction of Rs. 6,000. 00 for repairs under S. 24 (1) (i) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) or the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922. Subsequently, the assessments were reopened on the ground that the assessee had got excess of relief. In the reassessments the Income-tax Officer held that as the lessee had undertaken to keep the premises in good and habitable condition, execute all repairs, the deduction of Rs. 6,000. 00 was impermissible. The Income-tax Officer accordingly determined the annual letting value of the property at Rs. 40,000. 00 and allowed a deduction at Rs. 4,000. 00 towards repairs under S. 24 (1) (i) (b) of the Act. In respect of the assessment year 1954-55, the assessee claimed unsuccessfully that he had undertaken considerable repairs and that a sum of Rs. 5,645. 00 should be allowed. This claim was negatived by the Income-tax Officer who confined the allowance for repairs to the limit permissible under S. 24 (1) (i) (b) of the Act on the premise that this was a case where the tenant had undertaken to bear the cost of repairs. This view was affirmed by the Appellate Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal ).

IT is, perhaps, relevant to mention that some of the assessment years are governed by the provisions of the 1922 Act. But, having regard to the similarity of the provisions, this does not assume any significance or affect the substance of the matter.

( 3 ) AT the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal stated a case and referred the following three questions of law for the opinion of the High Court :

(1) "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessments for the years 1954-55, 1960-61 and 1961-62 were validly reopened under Section 147 (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"

(2) "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 24 (1) (i) (b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were applicable?"

(3) "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure which was not allowed while completing the original assessments could be considered for allowance in course of assessments re-opened under Section 147 (a)?".

AS stated earlier, the High Court answered the questions against the assessee, but granted a certificate under Section 261 of the Act as in its opinion two important questions arose out of the judgment. The questions the High Court had in mind are questions Nos. 2 and 3, (supra ).

( 4 ) IT must, at the outset, be observed that the question as to the validity of the reopening of the assessments which was raised before the High Court was not, in our opinion rightly, re-agitated here. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the High Court was in error in its opinion on questions 2 and 3. The third question referred was whether where once an assessment is re-opened by a valid notice, the whole proceedings of assessment were at large and all the claims and allowances which had been disallowed in the originalassessment could be re-agitated by the assessee. The High Court has answered this proposition against the assessee.

WE may take up and dispose of this contention first. It is seen from the order of the Tribunal that though certain reliefs were claimed by the assess