AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kirpal, J.—In this petition u/s 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner seeks reference of the following two questions of law to this court:
"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon''ble Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the additions of Rs. 60,980, Rs. 11,640, Rs. 75,472, Rs. 81,074 and Rs. 1,02,596 for assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, respectively, specially in view of the finding of the Tribunal in para 12 of its order dated June 24, 1981, that the agreement to sell the decretal amount did not amount to sale as such ?
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the agreement to sell the decretal amount did not amount to sale and, as such, the assessed-firm continued to be the legal owner of the amount in question and, if so, whether the Tribunal is justified in deleting the said additions from the hands of the said assessed-firm?"
Briefly stated, the facts are that there was an award of the arbitrator in favor of the assessed. A decree in terms thereof was passed, but the assessed entered into an agreement dated July 25, 1969, with another company, namely, Messrs. K. R. Steel Union Private Ltd. The decretal amount along with interest was, however, taxed in the hands of the assessed. The assessed successfully appealed against the said inclusion and the Tribunal found as a fact that this interest had already been taxed as income in the hands of the sister concern, namely, Messers. K. R. Steel Union Private Ltd. The Tribunal, Therefore, rightly deleted the said income from the assessment of the assessed/respondent.
Mr. Gupta informs us that enquiries have revealed that the amount of interest which was received has in fact been assessed finally in the hands of Messers. K. R. Steel Union Private Ltd. The interest obviously cannot be taxed both in the hands of the respondent as well as in the hands of Messers. K. R. Steel Union Private Limited.
The decision of the Tribunal in deleting this income from the hands of the respondent was, Therefore, correct.
In our opinion, no question of law arises. The petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs.