9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Application for registration of a partnership firm under the Income-tax Act, refusal of registration, appeal to the Tribunal, pending Supreme Court case, rejection of application under section 256(2) of the Act, direction for reference of proposed questions, legal grounds for seeking reference, remedy available to the applicant, relevance of previous court decisions.
Analysis: The judgment pertains to an application filed by a partnership firm under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking registration. The firm, involved in the sale and purchase of cloth, faced issues regarding the apportionment of shares among partners and the subsequent refusal of registration by the Income-tax Officer. Despite initial approval by the Income-tax Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal overturned the decision, leading to a series of legal proceedings. The matter was registered in the High Court as Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 244 of 1979, which was decided against the applicant. The case is now pending in the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition No. 7318 of 1981, with subsequent civil appeals for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's request for reference of questions related to registration, citing previous court decisions and the availability of alternative remedies under the Act. During the hearing, the applicant's counsel argued for the Tribunal to state the case and refer the proposed questions, emphasizing the similarity of issues pending before the Supreme Court. In contrast, the Department's counsel contended that the pendency of the case before the Supreme Court did not warrant a reference of questions, suggesting that rectification options were available post the Supreme Court decision. The High Court, considering past judgments, including the decision in Ganga Cut Piece Centre v. CIT [1982] 137 ITR 274, and the precedent set in CWT v. Smt. Usha Devi [1990] 183 ITR 75 (MP), concluded that no referable questions arose in the present case. Consequently, the application under section 256(2) of the Act was rejected, with the applicant advised to seek appropriate remedies as per the law when necessary. In summary, the High Court dismissed the application, allowing the applicant to pursue remedies as required, without imposing any costs. The legal fees were set at Rs. 750 for each side, subject to certification. The judgment highlights the significance of past court decisions, the availability of alternative legal remedies, and the limitations on seeking references based solely on the pendency of similar issues before a higher court.
|
