CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(1986) 02 MP CK 0036

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs SMT. GUNWANTIBAI RATILAL.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 27 February 1986 · Citation: (1986) 53 CTR 220 : (1986) 26 TAXMAN 303

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sohani, J
CASE NUMBER
M.C.C. No. 299 of 1984

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 364 words

Sohani, J. - This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2.

The material facts giving rise to this case briefly, are as follows : The assessee is an individual and the assessment year in question is 1978-79. The assessee had deposited certain amount with the firm M/s. Ratilal Manekji. The case of the assessee was that interest income did not accrue in the relevant year of account as the assessee had agreed to waive interest. The contention of the assessee was not upheld by the ITO. The ITO was of the view that interest income amounting to Rs. 35,677 had accrued to the assessee during the relevant accounting year and the same was assessed accordingly. The appeal preferred before the AAC was dismissed. The assessee thereupon filed a Second Appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found, after consideration of the entire material on record, that the agreement entered into by the assessee with the firm not to charge interest was genuine and reasonable and that the assessee had waived her right to claim interest. The Tribunal held that on the basis of the evidence on record, it was fully establishment that interest income had not accrued to the assessee in the year of account. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. An application by the department to make a reference was rejected by the Tribunal. Hence, the department has filed this application.

3.

Having heard ld. counsel for the parties we have come to the conclusion that this application deserves to be rejected. The questions as to whether interest income amounting to Rs. 35,677 had or had not accrued to the assessee in the relevant year of account is a question of fact. The Tribunal has found on a consideration of the material on record, that the aforesaid income had not accrued to the assessee in the relevant year of account. This is a finding of fact. No question of law arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal. The application, therefore, deserve to be rejected.

4.

For all these reasons, this application fails and is accordingly rejected.