SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/700708 |
Subject | Direct Taxation |
Court | Delhi High Court |
Decided On | Feb-22-1999 |
Case Number | ITC No. 77 of 1991 |
Judge | D.P. Wadhwa and; R.L. Gupta, JJ. |
Reported in | 77(1999)DLT737 |
Acts | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 41(1) and 256(2) |
Appellant | Commissioner of Income Tax |
Respondent | General Industries Corporation |
Appellant Advocate | Rajendra, Adv |
Respondent Advocate | Deepak Chopra, Adv. |
D.P. Wadhwa, J.
1. This is a petition under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 filed by the Revenue. The assessment year involved is 1982-83. The Revenue want the following two questions to be referred to this Court for decision :
'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the interest paid to partners at Rs. 25,187 for which deduction was allowed in earlier assessment years could not be taxed under s. 41(1) of the IT Act when the amount was written back
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the onus was on the Assessing Officer to establish that deduction for an amount of Rs. 36,667 was allowed to the assessed in earlier assessment years even though the assessed was claiming exemption from tax in respect of this amount and relevant facts were in the personal knowledge of the assessed ?'
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, we are of the opinion that a question of law does arise. This question, thereforee, need to be referred to this Court for decision. However, as regards, question No. 2 we do not feel any such question arises inasmuch as a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Steel and General Mills Co. Ltd. vs . CIT : [1974]96ITR438(Delhi) has already held that onus lies on the Revenue. Mr. Rajendra, however, referred to a decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Universal Electrics Ltd. vs . CIT : [1992]196ITR860(Cal) which appears to have taken different view. We, however, have to follow the view taken by this Court.
3. Accordingly, we partly allow the petition and we direct Appellate Tribunal to state the case pertaining to question No. 1 aforesaid and to refer to this Court for decision in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs.