Skip to content


Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Bank Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil I.T.C. Nos. 114, 114A, 114B & 114C of 1973
Reported in(1984)42CTR(Raj)231
AppellantAddl. Commissioner of Income Tax
RespondentRajasthan Cooperative Bank Ltd.
Cases ReferredCalcutta v. Associated Industrial Development Co.
Excerpt:
- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect -..........had any material to come to the conclusion that the assessee was holding the securities as its stock-in-trade ?'2. the addl. cit had first moved an application before the tribunal u/s. 256(1) of the act requiring the tribunal to refer the following question :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the securities were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade and the same were exempt from tax ?'3. according to the tribunal, the question proposed by the addl. cit really comprised of the following two questions :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the securities were held by the assessee as its stock-in-trade.2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the.....
Judgment:

By the Court - The Addl. CIT, Rajasthan, Jaipur has moved these applications u/s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for directing the ITAT, Jaipur to state the case and refer to this court for opinion the following question of law arising out of its consolidated order dt. 6-5-1972 passed in IT Appeals Nos. 1886, 1887, 1888 and 4499 of 1970-71 for the asst. yrs. 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 :

'Whether, the Tribunal had any material to come to the conclusion that the assessee was holding the securities as its stock-in-trade ?'

2. The Addl. CIT had first moved an application before the Tribunal u/s. 256(1) of the Act requiring the Tribunal to refer the following question :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the securities were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade and the same were exempt from tax ?'

3. According to the Tribunal, the question proposed by the Addl. CIT really comprised of the following two questions :

'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the securities were held by the assessee as its stock-in-trade.

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from such securities was exempt from tax ?'

4. The Tribunal by its order dt. 9-10-1972, held that the first part of the question referred to above, namely, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the securities were held by the assessee as its stock-in-trade could not be referred for the opinion of his court for the reason that the finding of the Tribunal that the securities that were held by the assessee as part of its stock-in-trade and not by way of investment of its surplus funds, was a finding of facts which was based on the various facts relating to the deposits, cash and bank balances and other fluid resources of the assessee and no question of law can be said to arise out of the said to arise out of the said finding. The Tribunal however, referred the question arising out of the second part of the question arising out of the second part of the question referred to above. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal refusing to make a reference in respect of first part of the question above referred, the Addl. CIT has filed this application.

5. We have heard Shri R. N. Surolia, the ld. counsel for the department and Shri S. M. Mehta, the ld. counsel for the assessee and we have also carefully perused the order passed by the AAC and the Tribunal in the appeals filed the assessee. In our opinion the Tribunal was justified in holding that the finding recoded by the Tribunal that the securities were held by the assessee as part of its stock-in-trade and not by way of investment of its surplus funds, is finding of fact which is based on the various factors relating to the deposits, cash and bank balances and other fluid resources of the assessee and no question of law can be said to arise out of the said finding. In this context we may refer to the decision of Supreme Court in CIT (Central), Calcutta v. Associated Industrial Development Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. : [1971]82ITR586(SC) wherein it has been held that the question as to whether a particular holding of shares is by way of investment or forms part of stock-in-trade of the assessee is a question of fact. In the circumstances, it must be held that the question as framed in the application cannot be regarded a question of law which arises out of the order of the Tribunal dt. 6-5-1972. The applications filed by the applicants are, therefore, dismissed.


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