TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (9) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fusing to refer the following questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 484/JP of 1986 dated February 15, 1990: "(1) Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of interest on estate duty refund of the late Shri Budhmal Dugar as not a capital receipt but as a revenue receipt liable to income-tax for the assessment year 1982-83? (2) Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of interest is not to be spread over the year of payment to the date of actual refund of estate duty but is liable to be taxed in the assessment year 1982-83 because the refund voucher was received by the assessee on April 20, 1981? (3) Whether the learned Tribunal was right in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment orders for the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 do not specify the method of accounting as 'cash' and no assessment order for any of the years was produced by the Revenue wherein the learned Income-tax Officer had specified method of accounting as cash when number of orders were placed by the assessee wherein the learned Income-tax Officer had specifically specified method of accounting 'mercantile'? (11) Whether the learned Tribunal erred in drawing adverse inference against the assessee on account of some inadvertant mistakes committed in the returns of income? (12) Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that the question of interest under section 215 could not be objected to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a sum of Rs. 3,93,925 in the month of April, 1981. The amount of interest was payable on refund from the date of payment of estate duty to the date of refund order, i.e, on February 28, 1973. It is alleged that a partition of the Hindu undivided family between Jabar Mal and his sons took place in March, 1974, with respect to movable and immovable properties of the family worth Rs. 12,00,000. It was recognised as a partial partition by the order of the Income-tax Officer dated March 7, 1975. The petitioner-assessee also claimed that the amount of interest received after partition of the Hindu undivided family was a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt liable to income-tax. In alternate, it was con tended that even if it is liable to ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion but having accrued year after year from the date of delivery of possession of the land till the date of such order and such interest cannot be assessed to income-tax in one lump sum in the year in which the order is made. It is also argued that in the instant case, the assessee had challenged the finding of the Tribunal that the applicant is maintaining the account books on cash basis and not on mercantile basis or mixed basis by raising a specific question and referring to materials which have been placed before the Tribunal which have not been considered by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the Tribunal itself has observed in the order dated February 15, 1990, that the assessee might have been maintaining the books of account on m....