AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sohani, J. - The order in this case will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 217 and 218 both of 1984.
These are application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
The material facts giving rise to these applications, briefly, are as follows :
The assessee, in all these cases, is assessed in the status of HUF. While framing assessment for the relevant assessment years, the ITO included in the income of the assessee the amount of interest on the amounts alleged to have been deposited by the assessees with the firm M/s. Jeetmal Manilal & Sons. On appeal, the AAC held that the amount deposited with the firm belonged to individuals and not to the assessee HUF and hence, there was no justification for inclusion of interest in the hands of the assessee HUF. In this view of the matter, the appeal was allowed by the AAC. On further appeal, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the AAC and dismissed the appeals. An application for making a reference submitted by the department was rejected. Hence, the department has filed these applications.
Having heard ld. counsel for the applicant, we have come to the conclusion that these applications deserve to be rejected. The Tribunal has affirmed the finding of the AAC that the deposits with the firm were not credited in the hands of the assessee. In view of this finding, no question of law, as proposed, arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal.
The applications, therefore, fail and are accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.