9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (11) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal. When the statement of the case was to be finalised, the Tribunal decided that out of the three questions which the department wanted the Tribunal to refer to the High Court, only one question should in fact be referred and it decided not to refer the other two questions to this High Court. That reference has already been made and Wealth-tax Reference No. 21 of 1970, which is now pending before this court, is in connection with the one question which the Tribunal decided to refer to the High Court. At the time when the statement of the case was to be finalised, both the department and the assessee were heard by the Tribunal and in paragraph 2 of the statement of the case the Tribunal has set out the questions which the Commissioner wanted to be referred to the High Court. The department's stand was that, apart from question No. 3, which the Tribunal actually decided to refer, questions Nos. 1 and 2 indicated by the Commissioner in his application asking for the reference should also be referred in view of the fact that this High Court had directed a reference on the same points in another case, viz., the case of Shri Kantilal Manilal, which arose under section 23 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal, the only portion which was not finalised was the statement of the case containing the facts on record out of which the particular question of law agreed to be referred by the Tribunal arose. The Tribunal proceeded to add : "The statement of the case is placed before the parties by calling it a draft, so that the parties may suggest certain modifications or additions with regad to factual aspects which have to be incorporated in the statement of the case. These modifications, additions or corrections do not affect the conclusion reached by the Tribunal which, as already stated, is final and binding. Therefore, we hold that it is not permissible for any party to reargue a point concluded by the decision of the Tribunal. In other words, a question which has been refused to be referred by the Tribunal by its order while preparing the statement of the case cannot be reopened when the matter is placed for finalising the statement of the case on the question the Tribunal desires to make a reference. In view of this conclusion, the Tribunal did not allow a reference to be made as regards questions Nos. 1 and 2 and did not allow those two questions to be reagitated. Both the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are necessary to be stated or certain further or other questions of law arise and should be brought for decision by the court. " In laying down this practice, the Supreme Court approved of the observations of Kania J. in N. V. Khandvala v. Commissioner of Income-tax as approved in Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax and the decision in Mcleod Co.'s case is partly based on the practice which has been followed in the High Court of Bombay as also in the High Court of Calcutta, viz., that an aggrieved party who wants to contend that certain further facts ought to be stated or certain further questions of law should be raised, can approach the High Court by making an application by way of notice of motion. The practice which is being followed in our High Court is that after a reference is made to the High Court by the Tribunal and notice of the filing of the reference is served on the assessee and the department, the assessee or the department, as the case may be, applies to the High Court within the prescribed period of limitation for a direction from the High Court to the Tribunal that certain questions of law should be referred to the High Court. The High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the High Court. It is clear from the passage we have just quoted from the decision of the Tribunal at the stage of finalizing of the statement of the case, that the Tribunal treated its order, dated October 17, 1969, as the final decision by the Tribunal that only one question out of the three should be referred and the application for reference as regards the other two questions should be rejected. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mcleod Co.'s case it is only when a statement of the case is filed in court that the party which is aggrieved and which wants to contend that certain facts ought to be stated or certain other or further questions of law arise, is required to make an application asking for reference or a further statement of the case. We may point out that till the stage when the reference is actually filed in court, the earlier stages which the Tribunal goes through are tentative stages and not final and at no intermediary stage can it be said that a final decision is taken by the Tribunal. It is possible that in a particular case in the process of formulating the questions of law, the Tribunal may feel that its earlier decision regarding how many ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
