Girdhari Lal Saraf vs Commissioner of Income Tax

S.K. Keshote, J.—The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, made this reference u/s 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, thereunder, two questions, reproduced below, have been referred for the Court''s opinion at the instance of the assessee :

"In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, was the Tribunal right in holding that granting an interest-free advance by the assessee-company to the lessor, the assessee and director of the assessee-company, constituted a perquisite and therefore, interest calculated at market rate was an income u/s 2(24)(iv) of the Act ?"

"Whether the Tribunal was right in not directing the AO to allow interest deemed as income u/s 2(24)(iv) of the Act as a deduction u/s 24(1)(vi) of the Act against income from house property when admittedly the impugned property was acquired with the amount of Rs. 5,50,000 advanced by the assessee free of interest ?"

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the first question referred by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for this Court''s opinion is squarely covered by the judgment of the apex Court in the case of V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, in favour of the assessee.

Learned counsel for the parties are in further agreement that the second question referred for the opinion of the Court is consequential to question No. 1 and in case where, the question No. 1 is decided in favour of the assessee against the Revenue, the second question becomes redundant.

Having gone through the statement of the case and the judgment of their Lordships of the apex Court in the case of V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. v. CIT (supra), we are satisfied that the first question referred for the opinion of this Court by the Tribunal stands concluded in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the question No. 1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. As a result of the opinion on question No. 1, the question No. 2 becomes redundant and thus no necessity to give any opinion on this question.

This reference, accordingly disposed of. However, in the facts of this case no order as to costs.