9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court, in the following terms:- "Whether the reference in MCC No.668/1993 decided by the Division Bench on 16.7.1996 in the case of Lilasons Breweries Pvt. Limited, Bhopal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal, is good law in the light of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Limited, (1979) 116 ITR 60 (SC)" 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant/assessee M/s Lilasons Breweries Limited is a limited company and collects a sum of Rs.20 per Rs.1,000/- of the bill amount as Dharmada which is kept and maintained in a separate account. It is submitted that as the amount collected by the assessee towards Dharmada was included as revenue receipt and assessed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee had failed to bring on record any material to indicate contribution on regular basis to some of the institutions. The said finding of the Tribunal purely relates to the appreciation of evidence and we find that the same does not give rise to any question of law or the question No.2 as referred to us. Under these circumstances, the second question is also answered against the applicant-assessee and in favour of the revenue." 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the decision in the case of Lilasons Breweries Pvt. Limited (supra) is not good law in the light of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Limited, (1979) 116 ITR 60 (SC), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd apparently clear that this Court, while deciding the question of law referred to it under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has clearly stated that the finding recorded by the Tribunal purely relates to appreciation of evidence and it does not give rise to any question of law and has answered the question accordingly. It is, therefore, clear that the Division Bench did not decide the issue at all nor did it lay down any law in respect of the issue of Dharmada but simply stated that the finding of the Tribunal and the issue raised before it was a question of fact and no question of law arises for decision. In other words, this Court in the case of Lilasons Breweries Pvt. Limited (supra) has not l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "4. So far as inclusion of amounts collected as 'Dharmada' which are kept in a separate account and are utilised for charitable purposes is concerned, there can be no dispute that they are not liable to be included in the income of the assessee vide CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd.(1979) 116 ITR 60, but the Revenue's case herein is that though collected in the name of 'Dharmada', these amounts were neither meant for any charitable purpose nor were they spent on charitable purposes. In support of the same they rely upon the aforesaid written reply of the respondent- assessee itself. 5. In our opinion this was a proper case where the High Court ought to have directed the Tribunal to state the said question under Section 256(2) of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
