TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hah for J. P. Shah for the assessee. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by D.A. MEHTA -1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following question under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax. "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the interpretation of two circulars of the CBDT dt. 22-9-1965 and 6-1-1984 about the limit of expenses to be allowed as deduction in respect of commission earned by an Agent of Life Insurance Corporation who does not keep books of account is justified in law?" 2. The Assessment Year is 1991-92. The relevant accounting period is Financial Year ended on 31.03.1991. While fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned at Rs.20,000/- had been raised to Rs.60,000/- and the figure of 40% had been increased to 50% in the second circular, but in so far as the ceiling prescribed in earlier circular dated 22.09.1965 vide paragraph No. 2 of the said circular, having not been enhanced by the modifying circular the Tribunal was in error in interpreting the second circular to mean that the said ceiling should not apply. 6. On behalf of the respondent-assessee the learned Advocate has invited attention to decision in case of CIT V/s. Tukaram Ramchandra Shinde reported in (1994) 121 Taxation 251 (Bom.) to submit that in fact Bombay High Court did not find the issue as one which was involving a question of law and hence application u/s. 256(2) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances of the case, the impugned order of Tribunal deserves to be upheld only on this limited count, viz. wherein two different CITs having jurisdiction over the same range, viz. Rajkot, have recorded two different opinions in relation to two circulars, and therefore the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessment order cannot be treated to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue as the Assessing Officer had adopted one view of the matter. 9. Accordingly the question referred for the opinion of this Court is left unanswered without disturbing the final conclusion recorded by the Tribunal on different set of reasoning. 10. The Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
