COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. G. B. J. SETH & C. G. J. SETH
[Citation -1986-LL-0814-5]

Citation 1986-LL-0814-5
Appellant Name COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Respondent Name G. B. J. SETH & C. G. J. SETH
Court ITAT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 14/08/1986
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags reassessment proceedings • interest on securities
Bot Summary: 1976-77, the assessee s claim for deduction of dividend income was allowed by the ITO under s. 80L of the Act. Counsel for the Revenue, brought to our notice that s. 80L of the Act had been amended by the Trxation Laws Act, 1984 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1972. Of sub-s. of s. 80L of the Act, as amended, deduction can be claimed in respect of interest on securities, dividends, etc, only when the assessee is an AOP or a BOI, consisting in either case of husband and wife governed by the system of community of property in force in the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Goa, Daman and Diu. Of sub-s. of s. 80L of the Act, deduction cannot be allowed to the assess in respect of dividend income. Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee could not have been assessed in the status of an AOP. But the question as to whether the assessee can be assessed in the status of an AOP has not been referred to us and it does not arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal. From the order passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that the assessee had never disputed that the assessee was liable to be assessed in the status of the AOP. The only claim made by the assessee was that the assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 80L of the A c t in respect of dividend income. Our answer to the question referred to this Court is in the negative and against the assessee.


Sohani, J. By this reference under s. 256(1) of IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), IT Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred following question of law to Court for its opinions: "Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is justified in holding that assessee, who is AOP, is entitled to deduction as per cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of s. 80L of IT Act, 1961?" material facts given rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows: assesses are executors of Will of place R. C. Jall and are assessed in respect of income of estate of deceased in status of AOP. For asst. yr. 1976-77, assessee s claim for deduction of dividend income was allowed by ITO under s. 80L of Act. That exemption was, however, withdrawn by ITO in reassessment proceedings in compliance with directions of CIT under s. 263 of Act. Aggrieved by that order, assessee preferred appeal before CIT (A), who uphold assessee claim for deduction under s. 80L of Act by holding that exemption under s. 80-L of Act was admissible to APO. Revenue thereupon preferred appeal before Tribunal, which was dismissed. Hence, at instance of Revenue, aforesaid question of law has been referred to this Court for its opinion. At time of hearing. Mukati, ld. counsel for Revenue, brought to our notice that s. 80L of Act had been amended by Trxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1972. Under relevant provisions of cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of s. 80L of Act, as amended, deduction can be claimed in respect of interest on securities, dividends, etc, only when assessee is AOP or BOI, consisting in either case of husband and wife governed by system of community of property in force in Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Goa, Daman and Diu. In view of amended provisions of cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of s. 80L of Act, deduction cannot be allowed to assess in respect of dividend income. ld. counsel for assessee, however, contended that assessee could not have been assessed in status of AOP. But question as to whether assessee can be assessed in status of AOP has not been referred to us and it does not arise out of order passed by Tribunal. From order passed by Tribunal, it is clear that assessee had never disputed that assessee was liable to be assessed in status of AOP. only claim made by assessee was that assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 80L of A c t in respect of dividend income. In our opinion, in view of amended provisions of s. 80L of Act which have been given retrospective effect from 1st April 1972, it must be held that Tribunal was not justified in holding. that assessee was entitled to deduction under cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of s. 80L of Act. Our answer to question referred to this Court is, therefore, in negative and against assessee. In circumstances of case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. G. B. J. SETH & C. G. J. SETH
Report Error