Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Ranjiben Chinubhai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 105 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH ============================================================ 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 RANJIBEN CHINUBHAI -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR AKIL QURESHI with MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL and MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH Date of decision: 16/01/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL) �At the instance of the revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "B" has referred the following question of law for opinion of this Court in "Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the capital gains is to be taxed in the hands of the trust and not in the hands of the assessee, a sole beneficiary ?" 2.�The ITO included in the total income of the assessee, the capital gains of Rs.6885/- earned by the Trust of which the assessee is the beneficiary. Following the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench "B" in ITA No. 620/Ahd/1984, the CIT(A) directed the ITO to exclude the capital gains earned by the Trust from the total income of the assessee. The Tribunal has confirmed the view taken by the CIT(A). 3.�Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondent. We have heard the learned counsel for the revenue. The learned counsel for the revenue states at the Bar that the controversy raised in the present reference is answered by the Division Bench of this Court in CIT vs. Rajniben Chinubhai (Indl.) (this very assessee) in ITR No. 175/85, decided by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Mr Justice A.R. Dave on October 19, 2000. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case has held that the amount of capital gains should be taxed in the hands of the Trust and not in the hands of the beneficiary. 4.�In view of the decision referred to above, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ����(J.M. Panchal, J.) ����(M.S. Shah, J.) sundar/-