Bombay High Court
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gajanan Champalal Bajaj (Huf) on 13 April, 2007
Author: J Devadhar
Bench: J Devadhar, B Dharmadhikari
JUDGMENT
J.P. Devadhar, J.
1. Heard Mr. Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. K. P. Devani, learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. These two reference applications under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal dated 02/11/1993 in R. A. Nos. 392 and 393/Nag/93 declining to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court:
(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition if Rs, 15,000/-and Rs. 20,000/-made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment years 85-86 & 86-87 respectively as interest income
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting an addition of Rs. 69,000/-made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in silver for the assessment year 86-87
3. The assessment years involved herein are 1985-86 and 1986-87. On 28/10/1985 the premises of the assessee was searched wherein books of account of the assessee and its group concerns were seized. During the course of search it was found that the assessee had invested amount by way of bank deposits and National Savings Certificates. The assessee contended that the amounts invested were belonging to the individual and not to the assessee- HUF. However, the Assessing Officer passed assessment order making additions on account of interest in investments and also unexplained investment in silver under Section 69A of the Act.
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment, the assessee filed appeals before the Dy. CIT (A). The Dy. CIT (A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
1. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee filed further appeal before the the Tribunal and the Tribunal deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The reference application filed by the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Act is also rejected. Hence, this application under Section 256(2) of the Act.
2. In this case, it is not in dispute that the investments made were the amounts belonging to the individual and not to the HUF- assessee. The argument of the Revenue that since the amounts have been invested by the assessee in the Bank deposits and in National Savings Certificates, the assessee must have received the interest has been rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the interest income has been taxed in the hands of the individual and the same has attained finality. The Tribunal has also given a finding that the investment in silver has also been taxed in the hands of Smt. Kalawatidevi, wife of Shri Gajanan Champalal Bajaj. The Tribunal held that since the interest income has been taxed in the hands of the individual and the investment in silver is also accounted for, the same cannot be taxed again in the hands of assessee-HUF as it would amount to double taxation. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Tribunal being findings of fact, no referable question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, both the applications are dismissed.
3. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
