K. Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J:— Under section 256(1) of the Income- ‘tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following three questions:
“(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on the assessees under section 168 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that both the instalment of principal amount and interest on annuity deposit are taxable under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
(iii) If the answer to the above second question is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the proportionate estate duty payable on the annuity deposit is not deductible from the annuity deposit assessable as income?”
2. Similar questions were the subject-matter of consideration in Estate of Late H.H Rajkuverba Dowager Maharatti Saheb of Gondal v. CIT, [1982] 135 ITR 393 (Kar) (I.T.R.C Nos. 74 to 77 of 1976). That also pertained to the same assessee.
3. In fact, this fact has also been set out in the statement of the case (vide R.A Nos. 245 to 248.Bang/1975-76).
4. Counsel on both sides submitted that following the decision in I.T.R.C Nos. 74 to 77 of 1976, the questions may be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.
5. Following the decision in the aforesaid cases, we answer all the three questions in the affirmative and against the assessee.