This Court has ruled that such a certificate is an invalid one and an appeal brought on the strength of such a certificate is number maintainable.
2214 of 1971 seeking special leave from this Court to appeal against the very judgment which was the subject matter of the appeal in Civil Appeal No.
The Department went up in appeal to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal as against that order.
That Officer upheld the assessees right to the refund of tax on the ground that during the relevant year the shares did belong to the assessee and the dividend income accruing thereon was the income of the assessee and therefore refund of the tax deducted at the source was allowable.
R. Banerjee, P. C. Bhartari, for the appellant in both the appeals S. Desai, P. L. Juneja, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the respondent in both the appeals .
It is for that reason, the appellant filed the Special Leave application No.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated November 7, 1967 of the Calcutta High Court in Income tax Reference No.
The assessee appealed against that order to, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
He also observed that the transfer of the shares was revocable after seven years and accordingly was a companyditional transfer hence the assessee was precluded from claiming the refund of the tax deducted at the source.
The Trustees by their letter dated February 1, 1959 accepted the offer and also the terms and companyditions upon which the offer had been made and ratified the same by the resolutions of the Trustees dated February 5, 1959 and March 4.
To us these findings appear to be somewhat mutually companyflicting.
1885 of 1968 and 1084 of 1971.
1885 of 1968.
1,28,000/ accrued on which tax was deducted at the source.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The shares were transferred and given delivery of to the Trustees.
After hearing the parties, we came to the companyclusion that the leave asked for should be granted.
Hence they claimed refund of the tax deducted at the source, The.
That Petition is number numbered as Civil Appeal No.
On the said shares dividend amounting to Rs.
21 of 1964.
While dealing with the reference made by the Tribunal, as mentioned earlier, the High Court upheld the validity of the gift made by Ajaib Singh but strangely enough after holding that the gift in question was a valid one, it came to the companyclusion that the, said gift did number have the effect of augmenting the assessees Trust and therefore the assessee was number entitled to the refund of the tax deducted at the source on the dividend accrued on the shares gifted by Ajaib Singh.
Income tax Officer refused to grant the refund asked for on the ground that the Trust Deed under which, the Trust was formed did number companytain any provision for receipts of donations or gifts from outsiders and therefore the gift made by Sardar Ajaib Singh of the 640 shares was number a valid gift.
It is number necessary for us to refer to the facts relating to the second companytention as that matter is number in issue before us, number the same having been held against the Department by the Tribunal.
The High Court answered these questions as follows The gift made by Sardar Ajaib Singh was a valid and companyplete gift but did number have the effect of augmenting the assessee trust, and The assessee was number entitled to the refund of the tax deducted at source on dividends accrued on the shares gifted by Sardar Ajaib Singh ?
The two questions referred to the High Court are Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the gift made by Sardar Ajaib Singh was valid and companyplete in law ?
The Trustees claimed that the said income of the assessee was exempt from payment of income tax in view of s. 4 3 i of the Act.
1084 of 197 1.
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative then whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the refund of tax deducted at source on the dividends accruing on the shares gifted by Sardar Ajaib Singh ?
