JUDGMENT
B.N. Kirpal, J.
1. In respect of the asst. yrs. 1971-72 and 1972-73, at the instance of the assessed, the following two questions have been referred to this Court :
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 2,49,874 received by L. Bansi Dhar from the insurance policy covering the risk to the life of his father L. Murlidhar is correctly treated as ancestral property of the HUF of which L. Bansi Dhar is the Karta and not the individual property of L. Bansi Dhar ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, dividend income amounting to Rs. 13,330 earned by L. Bansi Dhar from shares of Bharat Ram Charat Ram (P) Ltd. held in the name of L. Bansi Dhar is correctly treated as belonging to the HUF of which L. Bansi Dhar is the Karta and not to the individual, L. Bansi Dhar ?”
2. At the instance of the CIT, in respect of the same years, the following two questions have been referred :
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law and holding that the dividend income and interest in the names of the following persons as per details given below against each could not be included in the income of the HUF for the asst. yrs. 1971-72 and 1972-73 :
Dividend Income Interest Income
1971-72 1972-73 1971-72 1972-73
Smt. Urmila 5,311 8,905 4,145 6,569
Bansidhar Master
Tilak 23,276 39,605
Kumar ------- -------
28,587 48,510
------- -------
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that 308 shares and 216 bonus shares thereon in M/s MMLS (P) Ltd. belonged to L. Bansidar in his individual capacity and not to the assessed-family and that the dividend on those shares be excluded from the assessment of the family ?”
3. It is an admitted case that the first two questions referred at the instance of the assessed are identical to the question for the earlier assessment years, which were answered in favor of the assessed by this Court in the decision reported as L. Bansi Dhar & Sons vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 58 (Del) : TC 37R.389. The said decision was also followed by this Court in IT Ref. Nos. 17 and 18 of 1992 decided on 2nd of November, 1992 [reported as L. Bansi Dhar & Sons vs. CIT TC 37R.654]. In view thereof, the said two questions are answered in favor of the assessed and against the Department.
4. As regards the questions which have been referred at the instance of the CIT, question No. 1 was similar to the one raised in L. Bansi Dhar & Sons (1980) 123 ITR 58 (Del) : TC 37R.389 (supra) and following the said decision, this question is answered in favor of the assessed. As regards question No. 2 relating to 308 shares and 216 bonus shares in IT Ref. No. 18 of 1982, it was held vide decision dt. 2nd of November, 1992 [reported as L. Bansi Dhar & Sons vs. CIT TC 37R.654], that the said shares should be regarded as belonging to the HUF and this question is, therefore, answered in favor of the Department.
5. There will be no order as to costs.