1985 (11) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....15, 1982, passed in Income-tax Appeal No. 431(JP) of 1982: " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that in the absence of inclusion of section 64(1)(vi) in Explanation 3 to section 64(l) of the Act, the provisions of section 64(1)(vi) will not apply to the clubbing of income which arises from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the son's wife after June 1, 1973, with the income of the father-in-law ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no intimate connection between the lady (Smt. Reshma Devi) becoming a partner with: her father-in-law in a partnership firm by investment of the amount ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order dated July 15, 1982. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, submitted an application under section 256(1) of the Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated September 29, 1983, rejected the application observing that the aforesaid question No. 1 which has been proposed by the Revenue does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal allowing the appeal. So far as question No. 2 was concerned, it was held by the Tribunal that the finding arrived at by it relates to a pure question of fact and so no reference can be made on such a finding under section 256(1) of the Act. Hence, this application under section 256(2) of the Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, for a direction to the Tribunal to refer t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that its applicability is confined to clauses (iv) and (v) of section 64(1) and so no aid could be taken of Explanation 3 for the purpose of clause (vi) of section 64(1) of the Act. The view taken by the Tribunal in this connection is correct. It follows, therefore, that question No. 1 proposed by the Commissioner of Income-tax does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has categorically come to the conclusion that there was no intimate connection between Smt. Reshma Devi, daughter-in-law of Shivji Ram, becoming a partner with her father-in-law in the partnership firm and the investment of the amount transferred to her by way of gifts by her father-in-law. This is a finding of fact and this finding of fact has not been....