COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. DR. (MRS) KAMLESH MADAN
[Citation -1987-LL-0731-4]
Citation | 1987-LL-0731-4 |
---|---|
Appellant Name | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX |
Respondent Name | DR. (MRS) KAMLESH MADAN |
Court | ITAT |
Relevant Act | Income-tax |
Date of Order | 31/07/1987 |
Assessment Year | 1979-80 |
Judgment | View Judgment |
Keyword Tags | reference application • unabsorbed loss |
Bot Summary: | 29th May, 1986 for opinion of the Hon'ble High Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the set off of loss suffered by the assessee's wife in the firm in which the assessee and his wife were partners, against the income of the assessee under s. 64(1)(i) though Expln. 2 to s. 64 was inserted in the IT Act, 1961 w.e.f. 1st April, 1980 Similar question is already pending in the High Court in relation to the assessee's own case for the earlier year and we had also prepared a draft statement of the case dt. The dispute related to assessee's claim for unabsorbed loss allocated in the hands of the husband of the assessee in a firm in which he was a partner. The claim was not allowed in the hands of the assessee on the ground that she was not partner in that firm. On appeal, the AAC accepted the claim of the assessee and reversed the finding of the ITO. The second appeal by the Department was dismissed by the Tribunal relying upon the earlier decision in ITA No. 611/Chd/ 80 decided on 17th Sept., 1982. Notwithstanding this Explanation, we had decided to refer this question as the year in dispute is 1979-80 but now the representative of the assessee has brought to out notice a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT, Bangalore vs. J.K. Gotla reported in 48 CTR 363: 156 ITR 323 wherein exactly similar question has been decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in favour of the assessee. Since now there is a Supreme Court authority which is conclusive on the subject, we think that no useful purpose would be served by referring this question which has become purely academic in view of the Supreme Court authority above-referred to. |