COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RANGNATH BANGUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS identical questions of law have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', we heard the consolidated reference cases together and set out our answers to the questions referred to this court, in our orders dated December 19, 1983. We had then stated that we shall give our reasons for the answers to the three questions referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal later on. We now proceed to give the reasons for the answers as contained in our orders dated December 19, 1983, and which are reproduced below :

(2.) THE assessees in both the cases are individuate, deriving their income from dividends on shares in various companies, besides income from other personal business. THE assessment years in question in the case of Rangnath Bangur are 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56 corresponding to the previous years ending 3Ist day of March of the years 1953, 1954 and 1955 respectively. In the case of Purshottam Dass Bangur, the assessment years in question are 1953-54 and 1954-55 corresponding to the previous years ending Match 31, 1953 and March 31, 1954. THE assessee held shares in various companies, most of which had their registered offices in the relevant years of assessment in the territories which were then known as "Part B States". THE ITO, while determining the total income of the assessee for the aforesaid assessment years, grossed up the dividend income and bifurcated it into two portions, one relating to Part A States and another relating to Pail B States while calculating the tax payable by the assessees. THE assessees did not claim and the ITO did not allow them any rebate on such dividend income which was allowable under para. 6A of the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Concessions Order"). Against the original assessments made by the 110, the assessees filed appeals before the AAC, but even in those appeals, rebate allowable under Para. 6A of the Concessions Order was neither claimed nor allowed.

(3.) IN the case of Purshottam Dass Bangur, as the assessment relating to the year 1955-56 was not the subject-matter of these proceedings, only questions Nos. 2 and 3 mentioned above were referred by the two members of the Tribunal to the President.