Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Iqbal Hasan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 87 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO @ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus IQBAL HASAN -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 87 of 1988 MR BB NAIK for MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner No. 1 MR SUNIL B PARIKH for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Date of decision: 25/09/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) �In this reference at the instance of the revenue, the following questions are referred for the opinion of this Court in respect of assessment year 1975-76:- (i) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions in the deed of partnership, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the amounts payable by the assessee to the other heirs of the deceased partner were diverted at source by over-riding title?" (ii) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the distribution of the income by the assessee was not a case of application of income after it was earned?" 2.�We have heard Mr. B.B. Naik learned counsel for the revenue, and Mr. Sunil B. Parikh learned counsel for the respondent-assessee. the revenue, and Mr. Sunil B. Parikh learned counsel 3.�At the hearing of the reference, Mr. Sunil B. Parikh, learned counsel for the assessee points out that apart from the fact that the tax amount involved in this reference is only Rs.7390/-, for the subsequent assessment years, the Department has accepted the assessee's case that the income in question is not taxable. 4.�Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the smallness of the amount involved and also the fact that for subsequent assessment years the Department has accepted the assessee's case on the same controversy, we decline to answer the questions. 5.�The Reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs. �����(M.S. Shah,J) �����(D.A. Mehta,J) zgs/-