1997 (11) TMI 75 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the process of referring questions of law to the High Court.
- Determination of the High Court's jurisdiction in dealing with questions of law arising from Tribunal orders.
- Analysis of whether High Courts can proceed to answer questions of law without requiring a statement of the case from the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with an application under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Revenue's application was rejected by the Tribunal, leading to a subsequent application before the High Court. The court questioned the necessity of following a two-step process when there is no dispute on the facts and the question of law is evident from the Tribunal's order. The High Court's jurisdiction in this context is described as an advisory one, limited to legal aspects only, without delving into factual investigations. The Tribunal's decision on facts is considered final, and the High Court's role is to provide legal advice based on the facts found by the Tribunal.

The judgment highlighted that a question can only be referred to the High Court if it arises from the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the need for the statement of the case to be based on the facts found by the Tribunal. If the Tribunal rejects a question under section 256(1), the aggrieved party can approach the High Court under section 256(2) for a review. The High Court can direct the Tribunal to refer the question if it disagrees with the Tribunal's decision. The court can require a comprehensive statement of facts if necessary for addressing the legal question effectively.

Regarding the procedure for handling questions of law, the judgment discussed the possibility of the High Court proceeding to answer the question without requiring a statement of the case if the facts are undisputed or clearly stated in the Tribunal's order. Reference was made to Division Bench decisions from the High Court of Orissa supporting this approach to avoid unnecessary delays and streamline the resolution process. The judgment also contrasted a dissenting view from the Kerala High Court, emphasizing the need for procedural flexibility to align with the evolving demands of justice administration.

Ultimately, the court in this case decided that no further statement of the case was required beyond what was in the Tribunal's order. The key issue to be determined was whether the question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, which the High Court could address without the need for additional documentation. The judgment underscored the importance of efficiency in legal proceedings and the need for a pragmatic approach in handling questions of law to prevent undue delays in resolving disputes.