Patna H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in determining the status of the assessee as an HUF ?

Counsel Appeared

K.K. Vidyarthi & S.K. Sharan, for the Revenue : Rameshwar Prasad & Munindra Nath Verma, for the Assessee

BY THE COURT :

These three taxation cases arise from three references made under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, by the Tribunal, ” B ” Bench, Patna, for the three assessment years, namely, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78, wherein two questions of law-the first question being in a consolidated form in respect of all the three assessment years and the second one being only for the asst. yr. 1975-76have been referred :

” 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in determining the status of the assessee as an HUF ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the ad interim payment was not a revenue receipt and as such was not taxable in the hands of the assessee ? “

2. It is not necessary to state the facts of these cases as in regard to the same assessee for different assessment years these very questions have already been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in quite a number of decisions of this Court. Although the questions have been gone into in a number of decisions, namely, CIT vs. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo (1980) 18 CTR (Pat) 248 : (1982) 133 ITR 658 (Pat), CIT vs. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo (1985) 49 CTR (Pat) 359 : (1986) 157 ITR 358 (Pat) and CIT vs. Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo (1986) 162 ITR 255 (Pat), to be precise, we may refer to the latest decision in (1986) 55 CTR (Kar) 78 : (1986) 162 ITR 255 (Kar) which has dealt with the case of the very same assessee wherein, on identical facts, the following two questions, inter alia, were referred to this Court for its opinion (at p. 257):

” 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in determining the status of the assessee as an HUF? ……… 3 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the entire addition of Rs. 1,40,329 being the amount of zamindari compensation and interest at 2 1/2 per cent thereon by holding that the receipt was of capital nature ? “

3. Both the above questions have been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. After reviewing, more or less, the entire case law on the subject, it was held that (p. 267) : ” For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the Tribunal was correct in the view that it took in regard to questions Nos. 1 and 3. ……… Questions Nos.1 and 3 are thus decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. “

4. No facts have been brought to our notice which deter us from following the earlier Bench decision of this Court in regard to this very assessee. We accordingly answer both the questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and hold that-(i) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in determining the status of the assessee as an HUF, and (ii) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the ad interim payment of Rs. 11,910 was a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt and, as such, was not taxable in the hands of the assessee. The questions referred to this Court are accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The parties shall bear their own costs.

[Citation : 172 ITR 671]