JAISWAL S P Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these seven INcome-tax References, ITR No. 65 of 1974, at the instance of the assessee, Shri S. P. Jaiswal, under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" and ITRs Nos. 98, 99 and 100 to 103 of 1977, at the instance of the Commissioner of INcome-tax, Haryana and Chandigarh, Rohtak, hereinafter referred to as "the revenue", under Section 256(2) of the Act, an identical question as to whether in law, on the facts and circumstances of the given cases, as found by the INcome-tax Appellate Tribunal, the varying interest amounts earned by the two sons, a daughter and the wife of the assessee in the respective assessment years on the amounts advanced to them by the assessee are or are not to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, has been posed for the opinion of this court.

(2.) THE backdrop of the facts against which the opinion on the question posed is to be formulated can be stated thus : THE assessee is the managing director of the Karnal Distillery Company Ltd., Karnal, hereinafter referred to as the company. THE assessee had a deposit with the said company of a sum of Rs. 1,74,639 as reflected in the credit balance to his account in the account books of the said company. On the instructions of the assessee, the said company in its books of account on April 3, 1962, showed the said amount to the credit of a partnership firm of M/s. Modern Property Dealers, Karnal, hereinafter referred to as the "firm", which comprised of only three partners, namely, Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal and Arun Kumar Jaiswal, sons of the assessee, and Smt. Mina Jaiswal, daughter of the assessee, who were to share in equal share, that is, one-third each, the profits and losses of the said firm. In the books of account of the said firm, the said amount was shown to the credit of the said three partners in equal shares. THE said amount was also shown in the account books of the company to the debit of the assessee and no interest had, in fact, been received by the assessee from the company during the assessment years in question on the amount in question which had been so advanced by him.

(3.) IN the later years, the ITO and the AAC remained consistent and continued to tax the interest income of the kind in the hands of the assessee, while the Tribunal on its part continued to follow the ratio of its decision rendered in regard to the assessment year 1964-65, from which had arisen I.T.R. No. 98 of 1977. The Tribunal, however, in regard to all the assessment years starting from 1964-65, referred the matter for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Act, posing the identical question, as already mentioned.