Commissioner Of Income ... vs Bharat Ram Charat Ram
1984 Latest Caselaw 213 Del

Citation : 1984 Latest Caselaw 213 Del
Judgement Date : 24 May, 1984

Delhi High Court

Commissioner Of Income ... vs Bharat Ram Charat Ram on 24 May, 1984

Author: D Kapur

Bench: D Kapur, D Wadhwa

JUDGMENT

D.K. Kapur, J.

1. On an application u/s. 256(1) of the IT Act by the CIT, the Tribunal referred some questions of Law, but declined to refer some and now the petitioner has moved u/s. 256(2) praying for a reference on the following two questions :

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding the AAC's order allowing deduction u/s. 35(1) of the IT Act in respect of contribution of Rs. 25,000 made to Shri Ram Institute of Industrial Relations when the assessed was not carrying on any business at the time of making contribution ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the institution was sponsoring various studies bearing on the Industrial Relation sand these studies had relevance to the business which the assessed was carrying on when, in fact no business was carried on by the assessed at the time of making contribution ?"

2. The ITO had rejected the claim of the assessed for deduction of the sum of Rs. 25.000 on the ground that the conditions in s. 35(1)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961, were not satisfied. However, there is a concurrent conclusion of the AAC and the Tribunal that these conditions were satisfied. This is a conclusion of fact and no question of law arises.

3. The second question does not arise at all because the Tribunal held that the Institute was sponsoring various studies bearing on industrial relations and these studies had relevance to the business which the assessed was carring on.

4. It appears the second question has arisen because the department was of the view that the assessed was not carrying on any business but there is a finding that the assessed was deriving income from M/s. Electrical Industrial Corporation which was an industry. So, the second question also involves a finding of fact. Accordingly we reject the present application, but leave the parties to bear their own costs.