High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench
CIT vs. Poonamchand Manmal Babel Family Trust
Section 256(2)
Rajesh Balia & H.R. Panwar, JJ.
IT Ref. Appln. No. 18 of 1987
24th May, 2001
Counsel Appeared
J.K. Singhi, for the Applicant : J.K. Ranka, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. An application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act has been made by Revenue requiring this Court to refer the following three questions of law said to be arising out of the Tribunal’s order passed in ITA No. 346/Jp/1984 dt. 24th Sept., 1985, in respect of which the application filed by the CIT under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, has been rejected on 9th July, 1986 :
(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of s. 164(1) itself are not applicable when both the beneficiaries and their shares are known and determinate.
(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the AAC about the charging of rate of tax by treating the assessee as an AOP on the rates applicable to the income of such association.
(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of the Department and thereby upholding the decision of AAC to treat the assessee as a specified trust with the known beneficiaries and their determinate shares and also that the assessee is not liable to be charged to tax at maximum rate under s. 164(1) of IT Act, 1961.
3. We are of the opinion that so far as question No. (iii) is concerned, whether the trust is a specified trust of known beneficiaries, and the share of each beneficiaries are determinate or is an unspecified trust, is a finding of fact, which cannot be required to be referred to this Court. So far as other two questions are concerned, two Bench decisions of this Court in respect of the very same assessee for the earlier years have rejected like application under s. 256(2) for raising the very same questions in case of CIT vs. Poonam Chand Manmal Trust (1988) 73 CTR (Raj) 11 : (1988) 171 ITR 153 (Raj) : TC 55R.839, and by a common order in two IT Appln. Nos. 72/82 & 73/83 made by the Revenue was rejected vide order dt. 11th Jan., 1995.
In view of the aforesaid, this application is also rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
[Citation : 254 ITR 429]