1996 (1) TMI 42 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding dismissal of appeals based on previous decisions.
2. Consideration of pending special leave petitions and their impact on Tribunal decisions.
3. Determination of referable questions of law in relation to concluded court decisions.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to three Miscellaneous Civil Cases involving common questions of facts and law, heard analogously and disposed of together. The applications were filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary issue in these cases revolved around the dismissal of appeals by the Tribunal based on previous decisions, specifically the decision in Mithalal Ashok Kumar. The questions raised in each case sought direction to the Tribunal to state and refer the cases based on the circumstances of the dismissals.

The court noted that the questions raised were already concluded by previous decisions of the court in CIT v. Mithalal Ashok Kumar [1986] 159 ITR 209 and CIT v. Mithalal Ashok Kumar [1986] 158 ITR 755. The applications for reference were made on the grounds of pending special leave petitions against the court's decisions in the Mithalal Ashok Kumar case. However, the court emphasized that the pendency of the same issues before the Supreme Court does not automatically warrant a direction to state the case and refer the questions.

Drawing from precedents such as CWT v. Smt. Usha Devi [1990] 183 ITR 75 (MP) and other cases, the court reiterated that the mere pendency of similar issues before the Supreme Court is not a sufficient basis for directing a reference. The court found that there was no referable question of law in the present cases and consequently rejected all three reference applications. The judgment concluded by stating that no costs were awarded, but fixed a counsel fee for each side in each case.

In summary, the judgment focused on the interpretation of previous court decisions, consideration of pending special leave petitions, and the determination of referable questions of law. It underscored the importance of established legal principles in deciding whether a reference should be made and highlighted the need for substantial grounds to justify such a direction.