| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1971 SLG 638 1971 SLD 638 (1971) 82 ITR 540 |
Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeals Nos. 1898 and 1899 of 1968 August 26, 1971
K.S. HEGDE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
R.H. Dhebar, J. Ramamurthi and R.N. Sachthey for the Appellant M.C. Chagla, H.K. Puri for the
Respondent
Civil Appeals Nos. 1898 and 1899 of 1968 August 26, 1971
K.S. HEGDE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
R.H. Dhebar, J. Ramamurthi and R.N. Sachthey for the Appellant M.C. Chagla, H.K. Puri for the
Respondent
Commissioner of IncomE tax
v.
Durga Prasad More
Law:
Section:
- Section 66 (2) - Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 CASE REFERRED TO Durga Prasad More v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 33 (Cal.) JUDGMENT Hegde, J.-These appeals by certificate arise from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Income-tax References Nos. 78 and 79 of 1964 on its file. Those were references under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (which for the sake of brevity will hereinafter be referred to as "the Act"). The question referred to the High Court seeking its opinion is : "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of the deed of conveyance and the deed of settlement the Tribunal is right in holding that the house property being premises Nos. 46A and 46B, Wellesley Street, Calcutta, is not trust property ?" 2. The circumstances under which that question came to be referred may now be set out. The assessment years with which we are concerned in these appeals are 1958-59 and 1959-60, the previous years being the Diwali Samvat 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. In the course of the assessment proceedings relating to those years, the assessee claimed before the Income-tax Officer that the income of the property at premises Nos. 46A and 46B, Wellesley Street, Calcutta, should not be taxed in his hands as it was trust property in his hands. The Income-tax Officer rejected that claim and included that income in the total income of the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Income-tax Officer. An application under section 66(1) was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that no question of law arose from its order. But, the High Court, on an application by the assessee under section 66(2), directed the Tribunal to state a case and submit the question mentioned earlier to it for obtaining its opinion. After hearing the parties, it answered the question in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner has appealed against the order of the High Court. The premises in question were purchased by the assessee on September 30, 1940, purporting to act as the trustee of the trust created by his wife, Smt. Benarsi Debi, for a consideration of Rs. 1,85,000. Theβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492