Commissioner Of Income Tax - Applicant(S v. Sunder Shyam Trust - Respondent(S

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No.68 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Sd/- ===================================================== 1[Whether Reporters of Local Papers may ]NObe allowed to see the judgment ?be allowed to see the judgment ?2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?NO 3[Whether their Lordships wish to see the ]NOfair copy of the judgment ?Whetherthiscaseinvolvesa substantial question of law as to the fair copy of the judgment ?Whetherthiscaseinvolvesa substantial question of law as to the 4interpretation of the constitution of NOIndia, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5[Whether it is to be circulated to the ]NOcivil judge ?civil judge ? =====================================================COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Applicant(s) Versus SUNDER SHYAM TRUST - Respondent(s) =================================================== Appearance : MR BB NAIK for Applicant(s) : 1, SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent(s) : 1, =================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYEDDate : 11/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) (1)The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench “A” has referred the following two questions under Section 256(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax: 1.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to charge the tax at normal rate instead of maximum marginal rate ?in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to charge the tax at normal rate instead of maximum marginal rate ? 2.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the interest charged u/s. 217 of the Act ?in law and on facts in deleting the interest charged u/s. 217 of the Act ? (2)The Assessment Years in question are 1984-85 and 1985-86.and 1985-86. (3)Heard Mr.B.B.Naik, learned standing counsel for the applicant-revenue. Though served none appears on behalf of the respondent-assessee.for the applicant-revenue. Though served none appears on behalf of the respondent-assessee. (4)Mr.Naik has very fairly invited attention to the judgment rendered by this Court on 11.02.2004 in the case of Commissioner ofIncome Tax Vs. Sinivali Trust, in I.T.R. No.67 of 1997 and cognate references to point out that in case of similarly situated trusts, wherein identical questions were referred for the opinion of this Court, it has been held that the Tribunal was right in directing the the judgment rendered by this Court on 11.02.2004 in the case of Commissioner ofIncome Tax Vs. Sinivali Trust, in I.T.R. No.67 of 1997 and cognate references to point out that in case of similarly situated trusts, wherein identical questions were referred for the opinion of this Court, it has been held that the Tribunal was right in directing the Assessing Officer to charge the tax normal rate instead of maximum marginal rate and the Tribunal rightly directed deletion of interest under Section 217 of the Act. (5)In the circumstances, it is not necessary to record the facts and contentions in detail. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid judgment, rendered on 11.02.2004 in I.T.R. No.67 of 1997 record the facts and contentions in detail. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid judgment, rendered on 11.02.2004 in I.T.R. No.67 of 1997 and cognate matters, both the questions, referred for the opinion of this Court, are answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.referred for the opinion of this Court, are answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. instead of maximum marginal rate and the Tribunal rightly directed deletion of interest under Section 217 of the Act. (5)In the circumstances, it is not necessary to record the facts and contentions in detail. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid judgment, rendered on 11.02.2004 in I.T.R. No.67 of 1997 record the facts and contentions in detail. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid judgment, rendered on 11.02.2004 in I.T.R. No.67 of 1997 and cognate matters, both the questions, referred for the opinion of this Court, are answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.referred for the opinion of this Court, are answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. (6)The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- [ D.A. MEHTA, J ] Sd/- Bhavesh* ***