Skip to content


Raja Baldeodas Birla Santati Kosh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Income-tax Reference Application No. 201 of 1979
Judge
Reported in[1986]158ITR601(Raj)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 254 and 256(2)
AppellantRaja Baldeodas Birla Santati Kosh
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax
Appellant Advocate D. Paul and; L.L. Sharma, Advs.
Respondent Advocate R.N. Surolia, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....only one submission, namely, that it was violative of the principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of the income-tax act and the rules made thereunder as the tribunal considered the decision in sardar bahadur s......jiyajeerao cotton mills and income by way of dividends in respect thereof, by raja baldeodas birla santati kosh, pilani, to birla jankalyan trust was raised during the assessment proceedings of this assessee. raja baldeodas birla santati kosh, relating to the assessment year 1970-71. the matter was decided by the income-tax appellate tribunal by its order dated september 23, 1976. thetribunal held that the gift of the said shares was void ab initio and that the transfer of the shares in question by the assessee, santati kosh, to the jankalyan trust was violative of the provisions of section 11 of the indian trusts act, 1882, on the ground that the trustees were not empowered to give away a part of the corpus for purposes other than that for which the santati kosh was created and further.....
Judgment:

Dwarka Prasad, J.

1. This application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '), does not raise any arguable question and as such it is not necessary to make a detailed discussion of the facts and circumstances which have given rise to the filing of this application under Section 256(2) of the Act. It would be sufficient for the purpose of disposal of this application to state that a question relating to the validity of a gift of 25,000 shares of Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills and income by way of dividends in respect thereof, by Raja Baldeodas Birla Santati Kosh, Pilani, to Birla Jankalyan Trust was raised during the assessment proceedings of this assessee. Raja Baldeodas Birla Santati Kosh, relating to the assessment year 1970-71. The matter was decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by its order dated September 23, 1976. TheTribunal held that the gift of the said shares was void ab initio and that the transfer of the shares in question by the assessee, Santati Kosh, to the Jankalyan Trust was violative of the provisions of Section 11 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, on the ground that the trustees were not empowered to give away a part of the corpus for purposes other than that for which the Santati Kosh was created and further that the consent of all the major beneficiaries was not obtained by the trustees of the Santati Kosh before making the said transfer and that a direction of the competent civil court was also not obtained so far as minor beneficiaries were concerned. It was, therefore, held by the Tribunal that the shares in question continued to remain the property of the Santati Kosh and income therefrom was assessable in the hands of the assessee, Santati Kosh. Thereafter, an application for rectification was filed by the assessee, which was partly allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated March 31, 1978. An application for reference was made before the Tribunal by the assessee desiring that certain questions arising out of the orders of the Tribunal dated September 23, 1976, and March 31,1978, be referred to this court. So far as the questions arising out of the order dated September 23, 1976, were concerned, the Tribunal itself referred four questions to this court, vide its order dated June 22, 1979, while we have directed the Tribunal to refer two more questions to us by our order passed separately today in D.B. Income-tax Reference Application No. 202 of 1979.

2. So far as the order of the Tribunal dated March 31,1978, is concerned, only one argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee before us and it was submitted that a decision of their Lordships in Sardar Bahadur S. Indra Singh Trust v. CIT : [1971]82ITR561(SC) , was not referred to by either party at the time of arguments before the Appellate Tribunal, but it was referred to by the Tribunal while deciding the rectification application by its order dated March 31, 1978. The Tribunal rejected the application for making a reference on the ground that the Tribunal only rectified certain mistakes in its order dated September 23, 1976, by the subsequent order passed on March 31, 1978, but the ultimate conclusion remained unaltered and that the decision of the Supreme Court relevant to the subject could be referred to by the Tribunal while deciding the rectification application, although the same may not have been referred to by either of the parties at the time of arguments.

3. Dr. Paul, appearing for the assessee before us, raised only one submission, namely, that it was violative of the principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of the Income-tax Act and the Rules made thereunder as the Tribunal considered the decision in Sardar Bahadur S. Indra Singh Trust's case : [1971]82ITR561(SC) , in its judgment, without the same beingcited by either party before the Tribunal and it was submitted that the assessee had no opportunity to explain the aforesaid decision before the Tribunal.

4. We do not at all feel impressed by the argument advanced before us. The Tribunal could refer to a decision of the Supreme Court, which is the law of the land, if the same is relevant to the subject-matter of decision by the Tribunal, irrespective of the fact that the said decision was not referred to by learned counsel appearing for either party before the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal, in which such decision of the Supreme Court has been referred to, cannot be held to have been passed in disregard of the principles of natural justice or the provisions of the Income-tax Act or the Rules made thereunder. Learned counsel was unable to show as to how the assessee was prejudiced by the fact that the Tribunal referred to the decision in Sardar Bahadur S. Indra Singh Trust's case : [1971]82ITR561(SC) , in its order dated March 31, 1978. There is nothing illegal in the procedure adopted by the Tribunal in referring to a decision of the Supreme Court, though the same may not have been cited before it by learned counsel for either party, when the Tribunal thought that it was relevant to the subject-matter of decision.

5. No other point was argued before us.

6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that it is not at all necessary to call for a reference in this matter as no question of law, which deserves to be referred, arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal dated March 31, 1978.

7. The application for calling a reference consequently is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.


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