Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kamal Kumar
[Citation -1986-LL-0303-1]

Citation 1986-LL-0303-1
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax
Respondent Name Kamal Kumar
Court HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 03/03/1986
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags interest income • deposit of money
Bot Summary: These are applications under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The material facts giving rise to these applications, briefly, are as follows: The assessee, in all these cases, is assessed in the status of HUF. While framing assessment for the relevant assessment years, the ITO included in the income of the assessee the amount of interest on the amount alleged to have been deposited by the assessee with the firm Jeetmal Manilal Sons. On appeal, the AAC held that the amount deposited with the firm deluged to individuals and not to assessee HUF and hence, there was no justification for inclusion of interest in the hands of the assessee HUF. In this view of the matter, the appeal was allowed by the AAC. On further appeal, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the AAC and dismissed the appeals. An application for making a reference submitted by the Department was rejected. Counsel for the applicant, we have come to the conclusion that these applications deserve to be rejected. The Tribunal has affirmed the finding of the AAC that the deposits with the firm were not credited in the hands of the assessee. In view of this finding, no question of law, as proposed, arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal.


Sohani, J.: order in this case will also govern disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Cases No. 217 and 218 both of 1984. These are applications under s. 256(2) of IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ). material facts giving rise to these applications, briefly, are as follows: assessee, in all these cases, is assessed in status of HUF. While framing assessment for relevant assessment years, ITO included in income of assessee amount of interest on amount alleged to have been deposited by assessee with firm Jeetmal Manilal & Sons. On appeal, AAC held that amount deposited with firm deluged to individuals and not to assessee HUF and hence, there was no justification for inclusion of interest in hands of assessee HUF. In this view of matter, appeal was allowed by AAC. On further appeal, Tribunal upheld order passed by AAC and dismissed appeals. application for making reference submitted by Department was rejected. Hence, Department has filed these applications. Having heard ld. counsel for applicant, we have come to conclusion that these applications deserve to be rejected. Tribunal has affirmed finding of AAC that deposits with firm were not credited in hands of assessee. In view of this finding, no question of law, as proposed, arises out of order passed by Tribunal. applications, therefore, fail and are accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kamal Kumar
Report Error