9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether an application for reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act lies in respect of an order made by the Appellate Tribunal rejecting an application made before it under sub-section (2) of section 254 of the Act? Analysis: The case involved four petitions by M/s. Jai Bharat Enterprises regarding a question of law arising under the Income-tax Act. The assessee claimed relief under section 35B(1)(b) for certain expenses incurred, which was initially denied by the Income-tax Officer. However, on appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed deductions on specific items for certain assessment years. The assessee further appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, urging grounds related to the weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act. The Tribunal directed deduction on commission payment but did not address other items, leading the assessee to file a rectification application under section 254(2) of the Act, which was rejected by the Tribunal. Subsequently, the assessee sought reference under section 256(1) before the Tribunal, which was also dismissed. This led to the current petitions under section 256(2) of the Act. The interpretation of sections 256(1) and 256(2) of the Act was crucial in determining the maintainability of the reference applications. Section 256(1) allows for a reference to the High Court if a question of law arises out of an order made under section 254 of the Act. However, if the Tribunal refuses to state a case, section 256(2) permits the party to apply to the High Court within six months. The High Court clarified that an application under section 256(1) or (2) is only applicable to an order made by the Tribunal under section 254(1) of the Act. If an order is amended under section 254(2), the amended order becomes the reference point for a potential application under section 256. Notably, if a miscellaneous application for rectification is rejected, the original order under section 254(1) remains unaffected, and any reference application must be based on that order. This interpretation aligns with the Madhya Pradesh High Court's stance in a similar case. Ultimately, the High Court concluded that no application for reference under section 256(2) of the Act is permissible concerning an order by the Appellate Tribunal rejecting an application under section 254(2) of the Act. As a result, the Court deemed the civil petitions as not maintainable, based on the legal framework and precedents discussed in the judgment.
|
