CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsFull Bench(1998) 06 BOM CK 0064

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs POOJA ARCHA TRUST FUND

Bombay High Court · Decided on 30 June 1998 · Citation: (1998) 150 CTR 31

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. B.P. Sarat, J · B.P. Sarat, J · A.Y. Sakhare, J
CASE NUMBER
Dr. B.P. Sarat and A.Y. Sakhare, JJ. IT Ref. No. 134 of 1987
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 356 words

BY THE COURT:

By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this Court for opinion :

"(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that s. 164(2) of the IT Act, 1961 applied only if the trust was public religious trust and that inasmuch as the assessee was a private religious discretionary trust, the provisions of s. 164(1) applied and not the provisions of s. 164(2) of the IT Act, 1961T''

2.

This reference pertains to the asst. yr. 1979-80. The assessee in this case is a charitable trust. The income which is the subject-matter of the dispute in this case is Rs. 18,010. The dispute is whether the provisions of s. 164(1) of the Act would apply. The ITO applied provisions of s. 164(2) of the Act. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue at whose instance this reference is made. We have effused the statement of case and the order of the Tribunal. No sufficient material facts are available from the same to enable us to answer the question one way or the other. Moreover, reasonings of the Tribunal are not available because the Tribunal followed its decision in another case being Radhakrishna Dewalaya Trust, in ITA Nos. 351 and 352/Pn/75-76. The order in that case is also not annexed to this paper book. We are told that the application under s. 256(2) of the Act was also rejected in that case. Situated thus, it is difficult for us to answer the question referred to us for opinion. Moreover, the reference pertains to the asst. yr. 1979-80 and the controversy being about the rate of Income Tax applicable to income of Rs. 18,000 and the tax implication being very insignificant and no other reference of the same assessee being pending, in our opinion, no fruitful purpose will be served otherwise also by venturing to answer the said reference. Therefore, we return the reference unanswered.

3.

We, therefore, return the reference unanswered.

4.

The reference to be disposed of accordingly.

OPEN