Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Branch Manager, Lic Of India, … on 16 March, 2001

Rajasthan High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Branch Manager, Lic Of India, … on 16 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: (2001) 167 CTR Raj 410
Author: R Balia


JUDGMENT

Rajesh Balia, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out a common order passed in group of cases in which this application relates to ITA No. 488/JP/1997 relating to the assessment year 1995-96 for which RI No. 39/Jd./1997 under section 256(2) (sic-256(1)) of the Act has been dismissed by the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law said to be arising out of the Tribunal appellate order.

“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the demands raised under sections 201(1) and 201(A) of the Act.

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the principal officer (DDO) was justified in not deducting tax at source from conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance without certifying and verifying that the amount of these allowances had been actually incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the performance of the duties of office ?”

3. The reference application has also been rejected by a common order in a group of reference applications including RA No. 39/Jd./1997 arising out of ITA No. 488/Jd./1997 decided on 5-3-1998.

4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties that this court in DB IT Case No. 30/1999 which arose out of RA No. 41/Jd./1997 has allowed the application under section 256(2) by its order dated 20-2-2001 [reported as CIT v. Branch Manager, Bhinmal, LIC of India by holding the order of the Tribunal rejecting the application under section 256(1) to be erroneous.

Accordingly, following the aforesaid decision this application under section 256(2) is allowed and we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the aforesaid two questions of law arising out of Tribunal’s order for the opinion of this court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *