Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the additions of Rs. 60,980, Rs. 11,640, Rs. 75,472, Rs. 81,074 and Rs. 1,02,596 for the asst. yrs. 1971-72, 1972-73, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, respectively, specially in view of the finding of the Tribunal in para 12 of its order dated June 24, 1981, that the agreement to sell the decretal amount did not amount to sale as such ?

Counsel Appeared

B. Gupta & R.C. Pandey, for the Revenue : K.N. Bhutani & L.P. Daulat, for the Assessee

KIRPAL, J:

In this petition under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, the petitioner seeks reference of the following two questions law to this Court :

“(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the additions of Rs. 60,980, Rs. 11,640, Rs. 75,472, Rs. 81,074 and Rs. 1,02,596 for the asst. yrs. 1971-72, 1972-73, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, respectively, specially in view of the finding of the Tribunal in para 12 of its order dated June 24, 1981, that the agreement to sell the decretal amount did not amount to sale as such ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the agreement to sell the decretal amount did not amount to sale and, as such, the assessee-firm continued to be the legal owner of the amount in question and, if so, whether the Tribunal is justified in deleting the said additions from the hands of the said assessee-firm ?”

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that there was an award of the arbitrator in favour of the assessee. A decree in terms thereof was passed, but the assessee entered into an agreement dated July 25, 1969, with another company, namely, K. R. Steel Union (P) Ltd. The decretal amount along with interest was received by K. R. Steel Union (P) Ltd. The interest was, however, taxed in the hands of the assessee. The assessee successfully appealed against the said inclusion and the Tribunal found as a fact that this interest had already been taxed as income in the hands of the sister concern, namely, K. R. Steel Union (P) Ltd. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly deleted the said income from the assessment of the assessee/respondent.

Mr. Gupta informs us that enquiries have revealed that the amount of interest which was received has in fact been assessed finally in the hands of K. R. Steel Union (P) Ltd. The interest obviously cannot be taxed both in the hands of the respondent as well as in the hands of K. R. Steel Union (P) Ltd.. The decision of the Tribunal in deleting this income from the hands of the respondent was, therefore, correct.

In our opinion, no question of law arises. The petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs.

[Citation :183 ITR 28]