9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ("Tribunal"), at the instance of the assessee, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court: "Having regard to the terms of the will under which the bequest was made to the assessee, whether the amount spent by her for discharging her obligation under the terms of the will to maintain her children should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years also, the assessee claimed the same deduction of Rs. 14,000 on the same ground which was rejected by the Income-tax Officer for all the said three years. Aggrieved by the said orders of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore Division, Bangalore ("AAC"), who by his common order dated December 7, 1975 (Annexur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to tax the maintenance expenditure of Rs. 14,000 claimed by the assessee ?" On April 1, 1977, the Tribunal rejected the said application made by the assessee expressing that that question was concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court. On the assessee approaching this court under section 256(2) of the Act to direct the Tribunal to refer the aforesaid question of law for the opinion of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in upholding the action of the Income-tax Officer in reopening the assessment for the assessment years in question ?" Sri K. Srinivasan, learned senior standing counsel for the Income-tax Department, appearing for the Revenue, opposing the prayer of Sri Bhat, contends that the same is not a case of reframing the question already referred for our opinion, but is a case of framing an altogethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. We cannot, therefore, accede to the very first prayer of Sri Bhat. Both sides do not dispute that the question referred to us does not really arise for our determination from out of the order of the Tribunal. When that is so, there is hardly any justification for us to answer the same. In the light of our above discussion, we decline to answer the question referred to us. But, in the circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
