9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 986 for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84, Reference Applications Nos. 126 to 129/(Ind) of 1986 for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84, Reference Applications Nos. 130 to 133/(Ind) of 1986 for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84 and Reference Application No. 201/(Ind) of 1982 for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1977-78, arising out of W. T. A. Nos. 23 and 24/(Inq) of 1985, W. T. A. Nos. 25 to 28/(Ind) of 1985, W. T. A. Nos. 11 to 14/(Ind) of 1985, W. T. A. Nos. 15 to 18/(Ind) of 1985, W. T. A. Nos. 19 to 22/(Ind) of 1985, and W. T. A. Nos. 172 to 180/(Ind) of 1981, respectively, all decided on July 17, 1985, July 16, 1986, and July 20, 1983, the Tribunal has referred the undernoted question of law for our opinion : Whether, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applications and the Tribunal referred the aforesaid question of law for our opinion. We have heard Shri D. D. Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant Department and Shri P. M. Chaudhary, learned, counsel for the non-applicant-assessee. Shri Vyas submitted, that in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in (CIT v. Maltaraja Bahadur Singh [1986] 162 ITR 343), reversing the decision of this court, the question, arising out of the order of the Tribunal based on the decision incinerated thereafter, merits to be answered in favour of the Department. Shri Chaudhary in oppugnation contended that --- (a) CIT v. Maharaja Bahadur Singh [1986] 162 ITR 343 (SC) is not applicable to the present cases because subsequent to the period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders on account of the later decision of the Supreme Court terminating the very base and basis of the same. He placed reliance on J. M. Bhatia, AAC v. J. M. Shah [1985] 156 ITR 474 (SC) ; CWT v. Ginni Devi Joan [1990] 186 ITR 168 (Patna) and Parshuram Pottery Worhs Co. Ltd. v. D. R. Trivedi, WTO [1975] 100 ITR 651 (Guj). Shri Chaudhary contended that in the event of grant of such a liberty, the assessees be also granted freedom to press the point of declaration dated October 19, 1964, in an effort to secure the same order on that basis. In our view, the supplementary statement is not the proper course because (i) no plea of declaration was raised before the Tribunal as is contended herein ; and (ii) the Tribunal had no occasion to consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly in accord with current realities. That is the law laid down in Pasupuleti Venkateswaralu v. Motor and General Traders, AIR 1975 SC 1409. The situation presents no conundrum because of the indisputable position that orders, from which references are made, are rendered without consideration of the Supreme Court decision (as it is of subsequent date) and declaration (as it was not put forth). Counsel for the assessees has prayed for a supplementary statement which is held to be inappropriate whereas counsel for the Department has urged, though in the alternative, for liberty to seek rectification thereby indicating intention to withdraw the prayer of reference at this stage for resorting to other remedy as noted. In view of the aforesai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
