Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Poonam Chand Manmal Babel Family Trust - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Direct Taxation

Court

Rajasthan High Court

Decided On

Case Number

D.B.I.T. Ref. Application No. 18 of 1987

Judge

Reported in

[2002]254ITR429(Raj)

Acts

Income-tax Act, 1961 - Sections 164(1) and 256(2)

Appellant

Commissioner of Income-tax

Respondent

Poonam Chand Manmal Babel Family Trust

Appellant Advocate

 J.K. Singhi, Adv.

Respondent Advocate

 J.K. Ranka, Adv.

Disposition

Application dismissed

Excerpt:


.....to be examined whether the person was fully integrated into the employers concern or has remained apart from and independent of it. the other facts which may be relevant are as to who has the power to select and dismiss, to pay remuneration, to organize the work, etc. a full time worker usually works in a week for 40 hours or more depending on the award or agreement. if a person falls under the definition of workman under section 2(s) and does not fall in any excluded category, he will be covered by the definition of workman under the i.d. act, and he will be entitled to all the benefits under the said act. a perusal of section 2(s) indicates that it does not specifically refer to a part-time workman nor does it specifically exclude a part-time workman from the definition of :workman. since the number of hours is not the determining criterion for deciding whether a person falls within the definition of workman or not, it cannot be said that a part-time worker is not a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the i.d. act. however, to decide the status of a worker rendering services for less than 40 hours a week, various aspects are required to be considered. the..........the application filed by the commissioner under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, has been rejected on july 9, 1986 :'(i) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 164(1) itself are not applicable when both the beneficiaries and their shares are known and determinate ?(ii) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the appellate assistant commissioner about the charging of rate of tax by treating the assessee as an association of persons on the rates applicable to the income of such association?(iii) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of the department and thereby upholding the decision of the appellate assistant commissioner to treat the assessee as a specified trust with the known beneficiaries and their determinate shares and also that the assessee is not liable to be charged to tax at maximum rate under section 164(1) of income-tax act, 1961 ?'3. we are of the opinion that so far as question no. (iii) is concerned, whether the.....

Judgment:


1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. An application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act has been made by the Revenue requiring this court to refer the following three questions of law said to be arising out of the Tribunal's order passed in I. T. A. No. 346/JP of 1984, dated September 24, 1985, in respect of Which the application filed by the Commissioner under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been rejected on July 9, 1986 :

'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 164(1) itself are not applicable when both the beneficiaries and their shares are known and determinate ?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner about the charging of rate of tax by treating the assessee as an association of persons on the rates applicable to the income of such association?

(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of the Department and thereby upholding the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to treat the assessee as a specified trust with the known beneficiaries and their determinate shares and also that the assessee is not liable to be charged to tax at maximum rate under Section 164(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'

3. We are of the opinion that so far as question No. (iii) is concerned, whether the trust is a specified trust of known beneficiaries, and the share of each beneficiary is determinate or is an unspecified trust, is a finding of fact, which cannot be required to be referred to this court. So far as other two questions are concerned, two Bench decisions of this court in respect of the very same assessee for the earlier years have rejected like applications under Section 256(2) for raising the very same questions in the case of CIT v. Poonam Chand Manmal Trust , and by a common order two Income-tax Applications Nos. 72 and 73 of 1982 made by the Revenue were rejected vide order dated January 11, 1995 (CIT v. Poonamchand Manmal ).

4. In view of the aforesaid, this application is also rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.




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