Rc/215/1996 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Prince Mukarram Jah Trust For Education And Learning

HON’BLESRIJUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH&HON’BLESRIJUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM R.C. No.215 of 1996 JUDGMENT:- ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram) At instance of the Revenue, below mentioned commonquestions of law, which arise from the Order dated 29.09.1995of the Tribunal in I.T.A.Nos. 1951 & 52/Hyd/92 for theassessment years 1982-83 to 1983-84, have been referred forthe opinion of this Court. 1.“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in treatingthe assessments made on 20.03.1989 as infructuous when theassessments were completed well before the Tribunal orderdated 26.06.1992?the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in treatingthe assessments made on 20.03.1989 as infructuous when theassessments were completed well before the Tribunal orderdated 26.06.1992? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theI.T.A.T. was correct in canceling the assessments made underSection 143(3) read with Section 263 as infructuous in spite ofthe fact that the I.T.A.T. referred the cancellation of the order ofthe C.I.T. passed under Section 263 to the A.P. High Court fortheir opinion?”I.T.A.T. was correct in canceling the assessments made underSection 143(3) read with Section 263 as infructuous in spite ofthe fact that the I.T.A.T. referred the cancellation of the order ofthe C.I.T. passed under Section 263 to the A.P. High Court fortheir opinion?” From the statement of the case it is to be noted that forthe assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 assessmentswere completed accepting income as NIL. Thereafter, theCommissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals-I), in exercise of hisrevisional powers under Section 263 of the Income-Tax Act,1961 (for short “the Act”) had passed assessment orders on19.03.1987 and 21.10.1987. Assessee carried the matter inappeal both with respect to the original assessment and againstthe assessments made under Section 263 of the Act. So far asthe regular assessments are concerned, the Tribunal had accepted the original assessments. Assessments made underSection 263 of the Act with respect to the property known as“Kothi Asafia” were set aside. When the matter was referred inR.C.No. 53 of 1993, this Court, by order dated 27.09.2013,answered the following questions of law 1 and 2 1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the I.T.A.T. is justified in setting aside the orderspassed by the C.I.T., Andhra Pradesh-I, under Section263 of the Act, consequently restoring the originalassessment orders, thereby rejecting the stand of thedepartment to assess the capital gains chargeable to taxarising out of the compensation amount ofRs.30,19,257/- awarded by the State Government on04.02.1983 for the compulsory acquisition of the propertyknown as “Kothi Asafia” on 23.09.1981?case, the I.T.A.T. is justified in setting aside the orderspassed by the C.I.T., Andhra Pradesh-I, under Section263 of the Act, consequently restoring the originalassessment orders, thereby rejecting the stand of thedepartment to assess the capital gains chargeable to taxarising out of the compensation amount ofRs.30,19,257/- awarded by the State Government on04.02.1983 for the compulsory acquisition of the propertyknown as “Kothi Asafia” on 23.09.1981? 2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the I.T.A.T. should not have interpreted that thesettler of the trust also being the accountable person ofthe late Nizam had enured the benefit of the reduction inEstate Duty liability of the late Nizam to the extent of thecompensation amount awarded consequently attractingthe provisions of Sec.13(1)(c) read with Sec.13(3) of theIncome-tax Act.?”case, the I.T.A.T. should not have interpreted that thesettler of the trust also being the accountable person ofthe late Nizam had enured the benefit of the reduction inEstate Duty liability of the late Nizam to the extent of thecompensation amount awarded consequently attractingthe provisions of Sec.13(1)(c) read with Sec.13(3) of theIncome-tax Act.?” 2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the I.T.A.T. should not have interpreted that thesettler of the trust also being the accountable person ofthe late Nizam had enured the benefit of the reduction inEstate Duty liability of the late Nizam to the extent of thecompensation amount awarded consequently attractingthe provisions of Sec.13(1)(c) read with Sec.13(3) of theIncome-tax Act.?”case, the I.T.A.T. should not have interpreted that thesettler of the trust also being the accountable person ofthe late Nizam had enured the benefit of the reduction inEstate Duty liability of the late Nizam to the extent of thecompensation amount awarded consequently attractingthe provisions of Sec.13(1)(c) read with Sec.13(3) of theIncome-tax Act.?” in favour of the assessee and thereby confirming the originalassessments subject to variation made by the Tribunal. Thepresent R.C.No. 215 of 1996 relates to the orders of theTribunal setting aside the assessment order made with respectto the property “Kothi Asafia” under Section 263 of the Act. Inasmuch as the original assessments, which have beenrestored, having been confirmed by the Tribunal, the Tribunalheld the appeals filed by the Department before the Tribunalsetting aside the revisional assessment orders passed underSection 263 of the Act as infructuous. As against those orders, the Department had filed the present Referred Case raising thequestions referred to in paragraph No.1 above. Inasmuch asthe original orders stands confirmed by virtue of answering thequestions in favour of the assessee in R.C.No. 53 of 1993, wedo not feel it necessary to answer the questions raised in thepresent case as they are only academic questions. Hence, wedecline to answer the questions. Accordingly, Referred Case is dismissed. No order as tocosts. As a sequel to the dismissal of the Referred Case,Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed ofas infructuous. _______________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J 04-02-2014 ____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J bcj