Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda Vs. Gordhanbhai Jethabhai Patel
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 4035-36 of 1994
(With C.A.No. 4630/94)
(With C.A.No. 4630/94)
Petitioner: Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda
Respondent: Gordhanbhai Jethabhai Patel
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 4035-36 of 1994
(With C.A.No. 4630/94)
(With C.A.No. 4630/94)
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, R.C. LAHOTI & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 26, 2000
Head Note:
INCOME TAX
Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 40(b) – Deposit made in firm – Question, whether it was made by HUF or individual parties – Tribunal arriving on a finding. Held that the question was of fact and Supreme Court would not interfere in a finding of fact by Tribunal. Appeals dismissed.
(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The question of law that is said to arise in these appeals reads thus:
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the learned CIT (A) was right in holding that the deposit in the firm was made by Gordhanbhai Jethabhai Zaverbhai, HUF, and not by the individual partner and so provisions of Section 40(b) would not apply ?”
2. As we read the question, it is a question of fact, namely, whether the deposit in the firm was made by the HUF and not by the individual partner; and it is assumed that if it has been made by the HUF, the provisions of Section 40 (b) will not apply. The Tribunal is the final fact finding authority and it is not for the Court to interfere with the Tribunal’s conclusion. We have read the order dated 14th December, 1999, referring these appeals to a bench of three learned judges. We have also noted that Mr. B. Sen has been asked to assist us in the matter. However , we do not think that any decision on the law , as reflected in the order of reference, can be arrived at, in these appeals. We are grateful to Mr. Sen for having agreed to assist us.
3. The appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
1. The question of law that is said to arise in these appeals reads thus:
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the learned CIT (A) was right in holding that the deposit in the firm was made by Gordhanbhai Jethabhai Zaverbhai, HUF, and not by the individual partner and so provisions of Section 40(b) would not apply ?”
2. As we read the question, it is a question of fact, namely, whether the deposit in the firm was made by the HUF and not by the individual partner; and it is assumed that if it has been made by the HUF, the provisions of Section 40 (b) will not apply. The Tribunal is the final fact finding authority and it is not for the Court to interfere with the Tribunal’s conclusion. We have read the order dated 14th December, 1999, referring these appeals to a bench of three learned judges. We have also noted that Mr. B. Sen has been asked to assist us in the matter. However , we do not think that any decision on the law , as reflected in the order of reference, can be arrived at, in these appeals. We are grateful to Mr. Sen for having agreed to assist us.
3. The appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
