High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench
CIT vs. Fojmal Rajmal Chhabra
Section 256(2)
Asst. Year 1976-77
Rajesh Balia & Arun Madan, JJ.
IT Ref. Appln. No. 304 of 1985
10th October, 2001
Counsel Appeared
J.K. Singhi, for the Petitioner
JUDGMENT
RAJESH BALIA, J. :
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 by the CIT, Jaipur requiring this Court to direct the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question said to be a question of law arising out of the Tribunal’s order, dt. 29th Jan., 1979 : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that interest paid by the assessee to the minors on the gift made by the partners by mere book entries is to be allowed under s. 37(1) of the IT Act, 1971 ?”
The Tribunal has rejected the application under s. 256 (1) on the ground that no question of law arises out of its order.
2. The respondent-firm for the asst. yr. 1976-77 has claimed deduction in respect of interest paid to minors on sums which were shown as deposits in the books of account. The amount standing credited to the name of minors were as a result of gifts made by the partners of the firm. The gifts have been made by the partners of the firm in favour of respective minors by transferring amount from their respective accounts with the firm to the minors accounts by book entries. The AO as well as the AAC has held said gifts to be not genuine which is alleged to have been carried out by mere making book entries and consequently held that interest was in fact paid to the partners and not to the donees. As the interest paid to the partners was not allowable under the provisions of the IT Act, the same was disallowed as deduction while computing income of the firm.
3. In the first instance, the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the lower authorities and directed the AAC to decide the question afresh about the allowability of the interest under s. 36(1) and 37(1). The gifts were held to be genuine by the Tribunal. The AAC again held that gifts not to be genuine and held that the entries were managed by the donors to their own advantage. The Tribunal held that AAC was not justified in holding that gifts to be not genuine particularly when the GTO has held the gifts to be genuine and gift-tax has also been paid on said gifts. With this finding it was held that since amounts in the names of minors were actually utilised by the firm for its own purpose, the interest was paid for the purpose of carrying on the business and was then allowable expenses.
4. In our opinion, all the aforesaid finding of fact does not give rise to any question of law. The Tribunal was justified in not entertaining the application under s. 256(1) of the Act.
This application under s. 256(2) is, therefore, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
[Citation : 254 ITR 320]
