Skip to content


Omprakash Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous Civil Case No. 245 of 1976 (old No. 99 of 1974)
Judge
Reported in[1979]119ITR251(MP)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 41(1), 256(1) and 256(2)
AppellantOmprakash
RespondentAddl. Commissioner of Income-tax
Appellant AdvocateChaphekar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA.M. Mathur, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....the case, the tribunal was justified'in holding that the amount of rs. 57,200 which was allowed as loss on shares in the assessment year 1951-52 is the profit assessable to tax under section 41(1) of the income-tax act; 1961, in the assessment year 1965-66 ' 4. by this application, the assessee prays that the tribunal be directed to state a supplementary case and refer the question in the form in which it was stated by the assessee in his reference application. 5. the assessment order for the assessment year 1951-52 is a part of the statement of the case submitted by the tribunal. that order shows that the status of the assessee then was 'individual'. there is no dispute that the status of the assessee in the assessment year 1965-66 is huf. the point that the assessee wanted to raise was.....
Judgment:

1. This is an application by the assessee under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are that in the assessment year 1951-52, the assessee was assessed as an individual. He was allowed a sum of Rs. 57,200 as business loss in respect of 369 shares on the ground that the market value of shares in the previous year had fallen. In the assessment year 1965-66, the status of the assessee was HUF. In the previous year, corresponding to this assessment year, the shares were sold for a sum of Rs. 2,04,225. The purchase price of the shares was Rs. 2,07,755. The ITO held that as the shares were sold really for the same price for which they were purchased, there was no loss and that the sum of Rs. 57,200, which was allowed as business loss in the assessment year 1951-52, should be taken to be 'deemed profit' under Section 41(1) of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal which was allowed by the AAC. But, in further appeal, the Tribunal upheld the view taken by the ITO. The assessee applied to the Tribunal for stating a case and referring certain questions of law to the High Court. Question No. 1 formulated by the assessee in the reference application is as follows :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 57,200 which is allowed as loss on sale of shares in the assessment year 1951-52 in the status of individual is profit assessable to tax under Section 41(1) of the Act in the hands of the applicant-Hindu undivided family in the assessment year 1965-66 ?'

3. The Tribunal refused to refer the aforesaid question in the form in which it was formulated by the assessee on the ground that the question of status of the assessee in relation to Section 41(1) was never argued before the Tribunal. The Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of the High Court:

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified'in holding that the amount of Rs. 57,200 which was allowed as loss on shares in the assessment year 1951-52 is the profit assessable to tax Under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act; 1961, in the assessment year 1965-66 '

4. By this application, the assessee prays that the Tribunal be directed to state a supplementary case and refer the question in the form in which it was stated by the assessee in his reference application.

5. The assessment order for the assessment year 1951-52 is a part of the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal. That order shows that the status of the assessee then was 'individual'. There is no dispute that the status of the assessee in the assessment year 1965-66 is HUF. The point that the assessee wanted to raise was that as there was no identity of status of the assessee in the assessment years 1951-52 and 1965-66, Section 41(1) was not attracted. The Tribunal refused to refer this aspect of the matter on the reasoning that this question was not raised before it and, therefore, it could not be said to arise out of its order. In our opinion, the Tribunal is not correct on this point. The question whether Section 41(1) was applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case was admittedly raised before the Tribunal. The contention that the assessee wants to raise by pointing out that there was no identity of status of the assessee is only one aspect of the same question. Where the question itself is under issue, there is no further limitation imposed by Section 256(1) that the reference should be limited to those aspects of the question which had been argued before the Tribunal. It will be an over-refinement to hold that each aspect of a question is itself a distinct question. (See CIT v. Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. : [1970]78ITR474(SC) ).

6. In this view of the matter, we direct the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case and refer the question in the form in which it was formulated by the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //