Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Zenith Commercial Agencies. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
head note: income tax reference--self evident question--question covered by earlier decision of jurisdictional high court--reference refused. case law analysis : cit v. oriental power cables ltd. (1992) 105 ctr (raj) 76 and cit v. zenith commercial agency (db it ref. appl. no. 46/1988, dt. 14-10-1992) followed. application : also to current assessment years. income tax act 1961 s.256(2) db it ref. 45 of 1988 jaipur bench - 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 - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. orderby the court :this application under s. 256(2) is in respect of asst. yr. 1981-82 wherein application under s. 256(1) of the it act was rejected by the tribunal on 23rd december, 1987. the following two questions of law have been mentioned in the petition for which reference is required to be called for :'(a) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not under an obligation to deduct tax at source under s. 194a of the it act, 1961 and consequently directing the ito to remit the interest charged under s. 201(1a) of the it act ?(b) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in not holding that unless there was a valid justification for crediting interest to any account, other than the account of the payee, the credit to the account, such as interest account (in profit & loss account) would amount to constructively crediting the payee account ?'2. the point involved in this case is squarely covered by catena of decisions. the being in series, is the decision in d.b. it ref. application no. 57/1989 (cit vs. oriental power cables ltd.), dt. 28th april, 1992 [since reported in (1992) 105 ctr (raj) 76] and we have relied on the same and we have decided the application on 14th october, 1992 between the parties in d.b. it ref. application no. 46/1988; (cit vs. zenith commercial agency).3. in this view of the matter, this application is fully covered by the decisions referred to above and deserves to be rejected.we, therefore, refuse to call for the reference.

Judgment:
ORDER

BY THE COURT :

This application under s. 256(2) is in respect of asst. yr. 1981-82 wherein application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act was rejected by the Tribunal on 23rd December, 1987. The following two questions of law have been mentioned in the petition for which reference is required to be called for :

'(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not under an obligation to deduct tax at source under s. 194A of the IT Act, 1961 and consequently directing the ITO to remit the interest charged under s. 201(1A) of the IT Act ?

(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not holding that unless there was a valid justification for crediting interest to any account, other than the account of the payee, the credit to the account, such as Interest Account (in Profit & Loss Account) would amount to constructively crediting the payee account ?'

2. The point involved in this case is squarely covered by catena of decisions. The being in series, is the decision in D.B. IT Ref. Application No. 57/1989 (CIT vs. Oriental Power Cables Ltd.), dt. 28th April, 1992 [since reported in (1992) 105 CTR (Raj) 76] and we have relied on the same and we have decided the application on 14th October, 1992 between the parties in D.B. IT Ref. Application No. 46/1988; (CIT vs. Zenith Commercial Agency).

3. In this view of the matter, this application is fully covered by the decisions referred to above and deserves to be rejected.

We, therefore, refuse to call for the reference.