Delhi High Court

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs L. Shri Dhar & Sons on 5 July, 1993

Equivalent citations: (1999) 157 CTR Del 336

Author: B Kirpal

JUDGMENT

B.N. KIRPAL, J. :

The Tribunal has by a consolidated order, on applications filed by the assessed as well as the department, referred questions of law to this Court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Counsel for the assessed has filed in Court a statement indicating which question of law has been referred to in which IT Reference and in respect of which assessment year. IT Ref. No. 285 to 287/1980 arise out of RA Nos. 1165 to 1167/Del/1976-77 and are in respect of asst. yrs. 1959-60 to 1961-62. Two questions of law have been referred at the instance of the department and these are as follows :

1. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the 308 shares of M/s Madan Mohan Shri Ram P. Ltd. belonged to L. Shri Dhar in his individual capacity and not to the assessed's joint family and that the dividend on these shares should be excluded from the assessment of the assessed's joint family ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the dividend income from shares of M/s Bharat Ram Charat Ram (P) Ltd. and interest income standing in the names of Mrs. Prabha Shri Dhar, Miss Anuradha Shri Dhar and Master Ajay Kumar could not be included in the income of the assessed joint family ?"

2. Question No. 1 is similar to the question which arose in L. Bansidhar & Sohs v. CIT (1993) 109 CTR (Del) 62 : (1993) 201 ITR 655 (Del) 4 and it was held in that case that the said shares belonged to the HUF of the assessed. This question is, therefore, answered accordingly following the aforesaid decision.

3. Question No. 2 is identical to the case of Lala Bansi Dhar who was the brother of Lala Shri Dhar and in the case of Lala Bansi Dhar & Sons v. CIT (1980) 17 CTR (Del) 216 : (1980) 123 1TR 58 (Del) 9. It was held that the said income belonged to the respective individuals. This question is also, therefore, answered in the like manner.

4. IT Refs. 288 to 292/1980 arise out of RA Nos. 1168 to 1172/Del/1976-77 and are in respect of asst. yrs. 1965-66 to 1969-70. One question of law which has been referred in all these years, at the instance of the department, is as follows:

"Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the 524 shares (including the 396 shares) of M/s Madan Mohan Lal Shri Ram (P) Ltd. belonged to L. Shri Dhar in his individual capacity and not to the joint family of the assessed and that the dividend income on these shares should be excluded from the assessment of the assessed joint family for the asst. yrs. 1965-66 to 1969-70 and 1974-75 ?"

Following the decision of this Court in (1993) 109 CTR (Del) 62 : (1993) 201 ITR 655 (Del) (supra) it is held that these shares belonged to the HUF and the question is answered in favor of the Revenue.

5. IT Ref. No. 293/1980 arising out of RA No. 1043/Del/1976-77 is in respect of the assessment year 1962-63 and at the instance of the department the following question has been referred :

"Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case,-the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the 308 shares of M/s Madan Mohan Shri Ram (P) Ltd. belonged to L. Shri Dhar in his individual capacity and not to the joint family of the assessed and that the dividend on these shares should be excluded from the assessment of the joint family ? 11 1

This question is identical to the one referred to earlier and following the decision of this Court in (1993) 109 CTR (Del) 62 : (1993) 201 ITR 655 (Del) (supra) it is held that the said shares belonged to the assessed-HUF and the question is answered in favor of the Revenue.

6. IT Ref. No. 294 of 1980 is in respect of assessment year 1974-75 and at the instance of the department, the following two questions have been referred :

1. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the 524 shares (including the 396 shares) of M/s Madan Mohan Lal Shri Ram (P) Ltd. belonged to L. Shri Dhar in his individual capacity and not to the joint family of the assessed and that the dividend income on these shares should be excluded from the assessment of the assessed joint family for the asst. yrs. 1965-66 to 1969-70 and 1974-75 ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the dividend on shares and interest income of Mrs. Prabha Shri Dhar, Mrs. Anuradha Bishnoi and Master Ajay Shri Dhar could not be included in the income of the assessed joint family ?"

7. Question No. 1 is answered in favor of the Revenue following the decision in (1993) 109 CTR (Del) 62 : (1993) 201 ITR 655 (Del)4 (supra) and in answer to question No. 2 it is held that the income referred to therein belonged to the respective individuals in view of the decision of this Court in (1980) 17 CTR (Del) 216: (1980) 123 ITR 58 (Del)9 (supra).

8. IT Ref. Nos. 295 to 297 of 1980 arise out of RA Nos. 1156 to 1158/Del/1976-77 and are in respect of asst. yrs. 1959-60 to 1961-62. At the instance of the assessed the following questions of law have been referred .

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the reassessments under section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the asst. yrs. 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 as valid ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 2,49,874 received by L. Shri Dhar from the insurance company on account of the accident insurance policy covering the risk to the life of the father L. Murlidhar is correctly treated as ancestral of the HUF of which L. Shri Dhar is the Karta and not the individual property of L, Shri Dhar ?

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, dividend income amounting to Rs. 6,123 for 1959-60, Rs. 9,963 for 1960-61 and Rs. 12,144 for 1961-62 earned by L. Shri Dhar from shares of Bharat Ram Charat Ram (P) Ltd. held in the name of L. Shri Dhar is correctly treated as belonging to the HUF of which L. Shri Dhar is the Karta and not the individual L. Shri Dhar ?"

9. The facts in question No. 1 are similar to the case of Lala Bansidhar, the brother of the assessed, in which case it was held (1980) 17 CTR (Del) 216 :

(1980) 123 ITR 58 (Del) (supra) that the question of reopening the assessment did not arise inasmuch as the original assessment was made on correct basis and, therefore, the said question of law is answered in favor of the assessed.

10. As regards question No. 2, again following the decision in (1980) 17 CTR (Del) 216 : (1980) 123 ITR 58 (Del) (supra) it is held that the property in question was held by the assessed in his individual capacity, as was held in the case of Lala Bansidhar as well.

11. As far as question No. 3 is concerned, it is consequential to the decision of this Court in (1980) 17 CTR (Del) 216 . (1980) 123 ITR 58 (Del) (supra) and as a result thereof it must be held that the income belonged to the respective assesseds in their individual capacities.

12. IT Ref. No. 298 of 1980 arises out of RA No. 1042/Del/1976-77 in respect of assessment year 1962-63 and at the instance of the assessed the following three questions have been referred :

" 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the reassessments under section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the asst. yrs. 1962-63 as valid ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 2,49,874 received by L. Shri Dhar from the insurance company on account of the accident insurance policy covering the risk to the life of his father L. Murlidhar is correctly treated as ancestral of the HUF of which L. Shri Dhar is the Karta and not the individual property of L. Shri Dhar ?

3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, dividend income amounting to Rs. 1, 140 for 1962-63 earned by L. Shri Dhar from shares of Bharat Ram Charat Ram (P) Ltd. held in the name of L. Shri Dhar is correctly treated as belonging to the HUF of which L. Shri Dhar is the Karta and not the individual L. Shri Dhar ?"

13. The facts in question No. 1 are similar to the case of Lala Bansidhar, the brother of the assessed, in which case it was held in (1980) 17 CTR (Del) 216 : (1980) 123 ITR 58 (Del) (supra) that the question of reopening the assessment did not arise inasmuch as the original assessment was made on correct basis and, therefore, the said question of law is answered in favor of the assessed.

14. As regards question No. 2, again following the decision in (1980) 17 CTR (Del) 216 : (1980) 123 1TR 58 (Del) (supra) it is held that the property in question was held by the assessed in his individual capacity, as was held in the case of Lala Bansidhar as well.

15. As far as question No. 3 is concerned, it is consequential to the decision of this Court in (1980) 17 CTR (Del) 216 : (1980) 123 ITR 58 (Del) (supra) and as a result thereof it must be held that the income belonged to the respective assesseds in their individual capacities.

There will be no order as to costs.