TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( for short, " the Act "), pertaining to the assessment years 1971-72 to 1975-76 and 1977-78, at the instance of the assessee, the following questions of law have been referred for the opinion of this court : For assessment years 1971-72 to 1974-75 : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the refund of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment. The assessee is the executor of the estate of the late Shri N. N. Mohan. The late Shri N. N. Mohan had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,57,250 under the Annuity Deposit Scheme under Chapter XXII-A of the Act, which, along with interest was refundable in ten equal instalments under section 280D of the Act. Shri N. N. Mohan having died on July 15, 1969, the repayment of instalments of annuity along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee, therefore, the aforenoted questions have been referred. At the outset, Mr. Rajendra, learned counsel for the Revenue, has invited our attention to an earlier decision of this court in the case of the assessee, reported as Padam Shree N. N. Mohan v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 92, wherein it has been held that the refund of annuity deposit received by the executor of the estate of the deceased de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e family and on these facts this court held that the assessee was a " depositor " to whom the annuity was due to be repaid and, therefore, the receipt of instalments of the annuity by a person, as a karta of an erstwhile family, was a receipt by the " depositor " within the meaning of section 280D of the Act. He has also urged that under the charging section 2(24)(viii) of the Act what is included ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urring nature in view of the omission of section 280D along with other sections of Chapter XXII-A by the Finance Act, 1988, with effect April 1, 1988, we feel that it would not be worthwhile to refer the case to a larger Bench particularly when for the earlier year the issue stands concluded against the assessee by the aforementioned decision of this court which has not been challenged further. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
