1996 (5) TMI 51

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ainable ?" Learned counsel, in his characteristic fairness, with regard to questions Nos. 2 and 3 expressed his inability with regard to the consistent findings in regard thereto, and it is true that these questions wholly depend on such consistent findings, making it unnecessary to deal with them within the jacket of this reference proceeding. The assessment year in question is 1974-75 in regard to which the previous year ended on March 31, 1974. Undisputedly, the original assessment for the year in question was completed on July 31, 1975, whereby the total income of the assessee which is a private charitable trust was fixed at Rs. 10,910. The exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was also granted. This was reope....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st itself is a partner in Beena Enterprises and the capital investment by the assessee trust of Rs. 5,000, more than 5 per cent. of the total capital investment of Rs. 30,000, is also floating on the record. Specifically, it is pointed out that one Sri C. R. Kesavan Vaidyar, the assessee's managing trustee, would be a close relative of the remaining partners of the firm Beena Enterprises. It is further emphasised, on a perusal of the assessee's current account with the firm, that the assessee allowed continuance of the fund to remain invested with the firm for some time in the previous year relevant for the purpose of assessment. The officer, therefore, took the view that there is clear-cut violation of the above-referred statutory provisio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his own opinion in the matter after applying his mind. Learned counsel was more than strenuous in contending that the Department itself, on the basis of annexure "C", dated December 22, 1970, being of the view that the contribution of the share capital would not be "investment" could not be legitimately and/or legally understood to take a different view of the situation. It is more than obvious that concession on a position of law can never be understood to bind a party. The position that contribution to the share capital of any firm would be "investment" need not detain us any longer. It is as clear as day light that payment of money towards the contribution of share capital could not be possibly understood in any other manner than as i....