1983 (2) TMI 28 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of s. 256(1) and 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Conflict of opinion between High Courts on a legal question.
3. Refusal of the Tribunal to refer a question of law to the High Court.
4. Applicability of mandamus under s. 256(2) of the Act.
5. Consideration of conflicting judgments and the need for resolution.

Analysis:
1. The judgment discusses the interpretation of s. 256(1) and 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the referral of questions of law to the High Court. It focuses on whether a question of law arises when a similar issue has been previously settled by the court after dissenting with another High Court's view.

2. The case involves a conflict of opinion between the High Court and the Allahabad High Court on the treatment of income in the hands of an HUF's karta and his minor daughter in a partnership firm. The Tribunal followed the High Court's judgment in CIT v. Anand Sarup [1980] 121 ITR 873, leading to a question of law on the inclusion of the daughter's income in the karta's assessment under s. 64(1)(iii) of the Act.

3. The Tribunal refused to refer the question of law to the High Court, citing the High Court's previous opinion on the matter. The Commissioner of Income-tax sought relief under s. 256(2) of the Act, arguing for a reference due to the conflict of opinion between High Courts, as seen in Madho Prasad v. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 492.

4. The judgment deliberates on the applicability of mandamus under s. 256(2) of the Act in compelling the Tribunal to refer the question of law. It examines precedents like CIT v. Vindeshwari Trading Corporation [1978] 113 ITR 791 to determine the necessity of such a directive in cases of conflicting judgments.

5. The court concludes that issuing a mandamus would be futile as the question of law was already settled by the court in Anand Sarup's case [1980] 121 ITR 873. It emphasizes the need for the Commissioner to approach the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict between the High Courts. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to established precedents and the futility of seeking references in cases where the outcome is predetermined by existing judgments.