Cit vs Bercos Melody House
2000 Latest Caselaw 881 Del

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

These are two references under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) relating to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 and following questions have been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench B, for opinion of this court:

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amounts inherited by the two partners, Shri Krishan Advani and Shri Baldev Advani from their father and mother after their death belonged to their HUFs constituted by them, their wives and their children ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in affirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,964 made under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, on account of interest paid to the partners?"

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amounts inherited by the two partners Shri Krishan Advani and Shri Baldev Advani, from their father and mother after their death belonged to their HUFs constituted by them, their wives and their children?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 14,521 made under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, on account of interest paid to the partners?"

There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee in spite of notice. We have heard the learned counsel for the revenue.

2. The scope and ambit of section 40(b) of the Act came up for consideration of the Apex Court in Rashik Lal & Co. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 458 (SC). On going through the orders of the Tribunal and after hearing the learned counsel for the revenue we feel that the matter should be re-heard by the Tribunal by fresh adjudication keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in Rashik Lal & Co.s case (supra).

2. The scope and ambit of section 40(b) of the Act came up for consideration of the Apex Court in Rashik Lal & Co. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 458 (SC). On going through the orders of the Tribunal and after hearing the learned counsel for the revenue we feel that the matter should be re-heard by the Tribunal by fresh adjudication keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in Rashik Lal & Co.s case (supra).

3. The references are disposed of accordingly.

3. The references are disposed of accordingly.