Executrix of Estate of Late Shri L. M. Khatau Vs. Income Tax Officer. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderv. dongzathang, vice president :this appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the dy. cit(a).2. the ao completed the assessment on the assessee in the status of an aop. the ao did not allow deduction under s. 80l as the assessee was assessed in the status of an aop. on appeal the learned dy. cit(a) upheld the disallowance.3. the assessee is still aggrieved and has come up in appeal before the tribunal contending that the ao and the dy. cit(a) erred in assessing the assessee in the status of an aop and thereby disallowing deduction under s. 80l(1) of the act.4. at the time of hearing shri a. k. jasani, the learned counsel of the assessee, submitted that this issue is now concluded in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honble gujarat high court in the case of cit vs . deepak family trust no. 1 & ors. : [1995]211itr575(guj) and the decision of the calcutta high court in the case of cit vs . shri krishna bandar trust : [1993]201itr989(cal) . on the other hand, shri ashutosh dikshit, the learned departmental representative, submitted that no interference is called for in this regard as the view taken by the dy. cit(a) stands concluded by the decision of the honble supreme court in the case of ito vs . ch. atchaiah : [1996]218itr239(sc) .5. on careful consideration of the rival submissions in the light of the material on record, it is seen that the claim of the assessee is directly covered by the decisions of the honble gujarat high court and the honble calcutta high court in the cases cited above. in that view of the matter the ao is directed to allow the claim of deduction under s. 80l of the it act.6. in so far as the decision of the honble supreme court in the case of ch. atchaiah (supra) cited by the learned departmental representative, i am of the view that the decision was rendered in a different context and in connection with the provisions of ss. 2 and 4 of the it act, 1961, and is not relevant for this purpose. i hold accordingly.7. in the result, the appeal stands allowed.

Judgment:
ORDER

V. DONGZATHANG, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Dy. CIT(A).

2. The AO completed the assessment on the assessee in the status of an AOP. The AO did not allow deduction under s. 80L as the assessee was assessed in the status of an AOP. On appeal the learned Dy. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.

3. The assessee is still aggrieved and has come up in appeal before the Tribunal contending that the AO and the Dy. CIT(A) erred in assessing the assessee in the status of an AOP and thereby disallowing deduction under s. 80L(1) of the Act.

4. At the time of hearing Shri A. K. Jasani, the learned counsel of the assessee, submitted that this issue is now concluded in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs . Deepak Family Trust No. 1 & Ors. : [1995]211ITR575(Guj) and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs . Shri Krishna Bandar Trust : [1993]201ITR989(Cal) . On the other hand, Shri Ashutosh Dikshit, the learned Departmental Representative, submitted that no interference is called for in this regard as the view taken by the Dy. CIT(A) stands concluded by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs . Ch. Atchaiah : [1996]218ITR239(SC) .

5. On careful consideration of the rival submissions in the light of the material on record, it is seen that the claim of the assessee is directly covered by the decisions of the Honble Gujarat High Court and the Honble Calcutta High Court in the cases cited above. In that view of the matter the AO is directed to allow the claim of deduction under s. 80L of the IT Act.

6. In so far as the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Atchaiah (supra) cited by the learned Departmental Representative, I am of the view that the decision was rendered in a different context and in connection with the provisions of ss. 2 and 4 of the IT Act, 1961, and is not relevant for this purpose. I hold accordingly.

7. In the result, the appeal stands allowed.