Sah Roop Narain vs Commissioner of Income Tax

S.N. Bhargava, J.—This is an application u/s 256(2) of the income tax Act, 1961 (''the Act'') praying for a direction to the Tribunal to draw a statement of the case, and to refer the following question of law : 1. Whether the learned Tribunal was correct in law in not allowing deduction of Rs. 20,000 being- payment made to Smt. Ayodhya Kumari Sah for the furniture in Roop Mahal u/s 48(ii) of the income tax Act, 1961, while computing capital gain in its transfer?

Whether the learned Tribunal was correct in law in not allowing deduction of Rs. 1,970 as expenditure u/s 48(i) of the income tax Act, 1961, while computing capital gain on sale of Roop Mahal?

Whether the learned Tribunal had material to hold that there was no proof that expenditure of Rs. 1,970 were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the capital gain?

Whether the learned Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee-family is not entitled to benefit u/s 54 of the income tax Act, 1961, being a Hindu undivided family?

Whether the learned Tribunal had material to hold that five-sixth of Roop Mahal was not used for the residence of the members in the two immediate preceding years?

Whether the learned Tribunal was correct in law in not allowing salary expenses of Rs. 2,334 and general expenses of Rs. 500 from the business income of the assessee?

Whether the learned Tribunal had material to hold that there was no evidence on record to show that the expenses of Rs. 2,834 were incurred for business purpose?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances and in view of the material on record, the learned Tribunal was correct in law in sustaining the order of the Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) setting aside the issue regarding computation of the property income from the self-occupied property to be done de novo by the income tax Officer?

Petitioner is a HUP and owns a house named ''Roop Mahal'' at Mount Abu. Most of it was in use and occupation for the residence of the members of the family. This property was sold along with the furniture and fixtures to the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur on 27-8-1976, for a sum of Rs. 2,20,000. The petitioner incurred a sum of Rs. 2,520 in travelling and other legal expenses and claimed as deduction u/s 48(i) of the Act, but the same was disallowed by the ITO. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) partly accepted the contention of the petitioner and allowed the relief for Rs. 550 out of expenditure on legal fee but did not allow other reliefs. On further appeal, the Tribunal rejected the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner preferred an application for reference u/s 256(1) before the Tribunal for referring the above questions. The learned Tribunal made out a draft statement of the case on 16-9-1981 and referred two questions to the High Court. Suggestions on the draft statement were sought, and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal finally while drawing the statement of the case, referred only question No. 1 and question No. 4, though proposed to be referred by the draft statement, was not ultimately referred to the High Court. Hence, the petitioner has moved this application u/s 256(2).

We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

We find that none of the questions mentioned by the petitioner arise in the present case. They are not questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal and in our view, the Tribunal was justified in passing the order dated 16-12-1981 (Annexure ''E''). Therefore, this reference application is dismissed, without any order as to costs.