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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 95 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.H.SHUKLA =========================================================1[Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed ]to see the judgment ? 2To be referred to the Reporter or not ?3[Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy ]of the judgment ?Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?5[Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ]? ========================================================= MINOR PRAHLAD UGARDAS PATEL ORAL SPECIFIC DEF.FAMILY TRUST - Applicant(s) Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Respondent(s) =========================================================Appearance :MRS SWATI SOPARKARfor Applicant(s) : 1,MR BB NAIK for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.H.SHUKLA Date : 14/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ) 1. At the instance of the Revenue following two questions are referred to this Court by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, for assessment years 1980-81 to 1982-83. Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, for assessment years 1980-81 to 1982-83. “(1) Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in confirming the order of the CIT passed u/s.263 of the Act on 'Protective basis ? confirming the order of the CIT passed u/s.263 of the Act on 'Protective basis ? (2)Whether, on interpretation of section 160(1) read with section 161 and 166, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income did not 'accrue' or 'arise' to the specific beneficiary (the assessee in the relevant year and was further justified in concluding that the assessee could not be regarded as beneficiary in the year under review liable to be taxed at maximum marginal rate of tax under Section 164(1) of the Act ?” read with section 161 and 166, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income did not 'accrue' or 'arise' to the specific beneficiary (the assessee in the relevant year and was further justified in concluding that the assessee could not be regarded as beneficiary in the year under review liable to be taxed at maximum marginal rate of tax under Section 164(1) of the Act ?” 2. Mr.S.N.Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Mrs. Swati Soparkar, learned advocate for the applicant submits that in view of subsequent development reference for two years have become redundant and the appearing for Mrs. Swati Soparkar, learned advocate for the applicant submits that in view of subsequent development reference for two years have become redundant and the reference for the third year involves a highly insignificant amount. Therefore, keeping open right to challenge the Tribunal's order in other matters where the Tribunal have not followed this order and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the assessee this reference is being not pressed. 3. In view of the above statement, we decline to give any answer to the questions referred to us. Reference is accordingly disposed off without any order as to costs. without any order as to costs. (K. A. PUJ, J.) ( R. H. SHUKLA, J.) kks