9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal is correct in law in holding that the payment of annuity to the widow is not an application of income of the firm but is diversion at source ? " In these references the assessee is the same. Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee 'points out that the tax involved is less than Rs. 500 and relying on the decisions of the Bombay High Court in CWT v. Executors of Late D. T. Udeshi [1991] 189 ITR 319 and of the Rajasthan High Court in CWT v. Girdhari Lal Saraf [1991] 190 ITR 264 submits that we should decline to answer the references in view of the negligible tax involved. In the Bombay case [1991] 189 ITR 319, the Division Bench referred to Instruction No. 1573 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("C.B.D.T." for short) in it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that the amount of tax involved is undoubtedly very much less than Rs. 1,000. In K. Ch. Venkataratnam v. CGT [1974] 95 ITR 277, a Division Bench of this court held as follows (page 279) : "A number of decisions have held that if a party fails to appear or to take any interest in the matter, the High Court is not bound to answer the reference and it may refuse to do so. When an applicant says that he wishes to withdraw the reference, it means that he does not take any interest in the matter within the meaning of the decisions. When an assessee makes a request to withdraw from the reference or says he is not interested in pursuing the matter, it is left to this court, having regard to the circumstances of the case, either to accede ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 119, 125, wherein it was observed as follows (page 524 of 149 ITR) : "But having regard to the fact that the assessee at whose instance the reference on that question has been made does not want to prosecute the same, we think it unnecessary to consider that question and express our opinion thereon. It is purely a matter of discretion to answer or not to answer the question in the circumstances when a party who has caused a reference does not want to press the same." In V. V. Trans-Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 207 ITR 508, a Division Bench of this court agreeing with the view expressed in K. Ch. Venhataratnam's case [1974] 95 ITR 277 (AP), took guidance from the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
