2006 (4) TMI 88 - HC - Income Tax

Dismissal of the application made under section 256(1) by the Tribunal - It is the case of the applicant that the Tribunal ought not have dismissed their application made under section 256(1) of the Act for making a reference to this court on the questions proposed but should have allowed the same by making the reference under section 256(1) ibid. According to the applicant the questions proposed are referable questions and being questions of law arising out of the aforesaid appellate order the same need to be decided by this court in its reference jurisdiction conferred by section 256(1) - Tribunal is directed to make the reference to this court under section 256(1)

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of application under section 256(1) by the Tribunal.
2. Questions of law proposed by the applicant.
3. Tribunal's refusal to follow the decision of the High Court.
4. Tribunal's authority to ignore the High Court's decision.
5. Procedure to be followed by the Tribunal in such cases.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, following the dismissal of the applicant's section 256(1) application by the Tribunal. The applicant contended that the questions proposed were referable questions of law arising from the appellate order and should have been referred to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Act. The High Court considered the proposed questions and directed the Tribunal to refer them for examination, as they arose from the Tribunal's order and required the High Court's consideration.

The applicant had proposed three questions of law, including issues related to the Tribunal's failure to follow a previous High Court decision, the demand for additional tax, and objections to adjustments made by the Assessing Officer. The High Court found that the questions indeed arose from the Tribunal's order and should have been referred to the High Court for resolution. The Tribunal was directed to refer these questions to the High Court within a specified timeframe for a thorough examination and decision on the merits.

The High Court specifically addressed the Tribunal's refusal to follow the High Court's decision in a previous case, emphasizing that such issues of judicial propriety should be decided by the High Court and not the Tribunal. The High Court expressed reservations about the Tribunal's authority to ignore a High Court decision and make its own determinations. Consequently, the High Court directed the Tribunal to refer questions regarding the Tribunal's justification to ignore the High Court's decision, the correct procedure to be followed in such cases, and the Tribunal's authority to proceed against the assessee in conflict with the High Court's view.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the application, directing the Tribunal to refer the questions of law to the High Court for a comprehensive examination and resolution. The High Court emphasized the importance of judicial propriety and the need for the High Court to decide issues related to following High Court decisions, ensuring proper legal procedures are followed, and resolving conflicts between Tribunal decisions and High Court views.