9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short " the Act "), it appears to us, is misconceived and is not maintainable. The Commissioner of Incometax, Lucknow, feeling aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal made an application to it under sub-section (1) of section 256 of the Act for making a reference to this court on the questions set out in the application. The Tribunal, by its order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led proposing the same question that was raised in the application under section 256(1) of the Act. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. A plain reading of sub-section (2) of section 256 of the Act would show that this sub-section entitles an assessee or the Commissioner, as the case may be, to apply to the High Court for a direction to the Tribunal to state the case where the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that section. The remedy of the applicant, if any, may lie elsewhere. The application, in our opinion, is wholly misconceived. We may refer to a decision of this court in Govind Singh Bhagwan Singh v. ITO [1972] 84 ITR 214, in which the view taken was that where an application under section 256(1) of the Act made to the Tribunal to state a case and refer it to the High Court is rejected on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
