Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Anant Raj Agencies (Properties)
1989 Latest Caselaw 389 Del

Citation : 1989 Latest Caselaw 389 Del
Judgement Date : 2 August, 1989

Delhi High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Anant Raj Agencies (Properties) on 2 August, 1989

Equivalent citations: 1990 184 ITR 52 Delhi

Author: Kirpal

Bench: B Kirpal, C Chaudhary

JUDGMENT

Kirpal, J.

1. For the reasons stated in our order passed in I.T.C. No. 103 of 1986, in our opinion, no question of law arises in this case. The questions which were sought for in this case are as follows :

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax and holding that the firm had, in law, validly come into existence ?

(2) Whether. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a firm comes into existence even if there is a mere intention to carry on a business ?

(3) Whether. On the facts in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in the holding that the income from sub-lease of properties is business activity and income there from should be assessed under the head 'income from business' and not as 'income from other sources' ?"

2. These were the very questions which were sought in I.T.C. No. 103 of 1986 which we have already dismissed. It is, however, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, there were bad debts which were considered by the Income-tax Officer and, therefore, we should reform question No. 1 so that reference is called on the question whether the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the commissioner of Income-tax Officer. In our opinion, question No. 1 is limited to the question of validity of the partnership which had come into existence. There is no question which has been proposed by the Revenue dealing only with the question whether the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue irrespective of the fact whether the firm was genuine or not. It was opened to the Revenue to have frame the question that even assuming that the firm was genuine, whether on merits, the Income-tax Officer had passed and assessment order which was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue or not. No such question having been framed, we are unable to reword question No. 1 and direct reference of the question which has not been sought for. No costs.