9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,03,838 for the assessment year 1975-76, respectively, made by the Wealth-tax Officer on account of assets held by the assessee-trust in two excluded companies under section 13(2) of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Holding that for the assessment year 1973-74 also the assessee's case is covered by the proviso 2 to section 21A that any part of the property or income of a trust shall be deemed to have been used or applied for the benefit of prohibited category of person within the meaning of section 13(3) if it is so used or applied at any time during the period of twelve months ending with the valuation date and the assessee held shares of more than 5 per cent. of total equity share capita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 21A of the Act, held that the aggregation of the shareholding of the trust in two companies, was not in order. The Revenue carried the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal but without any success. The Tribunal also felt that the assessee's case was clearly covered by the second proviso to section 21A of the Act, as its shareholding in the two companies did not exceed 5 per cent. of the capital of each of the companies. On Revenue's moving an application under section 27(1) of the Act, the Tribunal referred the question with regard to the valuation of the shares held by the trust in the two companies but declined to refer the aforenoted questions on the ground that these were pure questions of fact. Hence, the present application. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... companies or not. In the light of the averments on this aspect the Tribunal recorded the finding that the investment by the trust in each of the concerns did not exceed 5 per cent. of their respective capitals and, therefore, the second proviso to section 21A of the Act was clearly attracted in the case of the assessee-trust. Obviously, this is a pure finding of fact. We are not impressed with the contention of learned counsel for the Revenue that since the issue raised involves interpretation of the second proviso, the proposed questions are questions of law. To our mind the language of the second proviso is very clear and there is no scope for any debate. The said proviso stipulates that "in a case where the aggregate of the funds of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
