JUDGMENT The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this Court:
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition to the assessee's income of Rs. 13,044 as interest paid by M/s. Bishambhar Nath Swaroop Narain to the members of the families of Sarvshri Shyam Narain Mehrotra and Swaroop Narain Mehrotra?"
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as under:
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as under:
The present reference relates to the assessment year 1979-80. The respondent, which is a registered firm paid interest amounting to Rs. 13,044 to various members of the family of Sarvshri Shyam Narain, Swaroop Narain, partners in the assessee-firm in their HUF capacities. This amount was added back in the assessment under section 40(b) of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, deleted the addition. The revenues appeal before the Tribunal has failed.
3. We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondent-assessee.
3. We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondent-assessee.
4. It may be mentioned here that for the assessment year 1977-78 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Act for opinion to this Court:
4. It may be mentioned here that for the assessment year 1977-78 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Act for opinion to this Court:
"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in deleting the addition of interest of Rs. 21,754 paid by the assessee-firm to the members of the families of Shyam Narain Mehrotra and Swaroop Narain Mehrotra?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that there was a valid partial partition of Rs. 60,000 in the assessee HUF, which consisted of only one coparcener?"
The reference was registered as ITR No. 125 of 1982 and this court vide judgment and order dated 31-3-1999 had answered both the questions in favour of the assessee and against the department. The question No. 1 of ITR No. 125 of 1982 is similar to the present question referred to us except that amount of interest paid is different.
5. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
5. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.