9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under a registered document. The petitioner was, therefore, denied deductions under section 24 of the said Act. Three different appeals were filed by the petitioner challenging the assessment of the said income under the head "Income from other sources". In respect of the aforesaid three assessment years, three separate appeals were filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), New Delhi. For the assessment year 1982-83, an order dated December 2, 1985, was passed by the Commissioner allowing the appeal. In respect of the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, a single common order was passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also dated December 2, 1985, allowing the appeals. The Income-tax Officer then filed three different appeals before the Tribunal. On September 23, 1988, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, following the decision of this court in the case of Sushil Ansal [1986] 160 ITR 308, came to the conclusion that the income from rent was assessable under the head "Other sources". The three appeals of the Income-tax Officer in respect of the assessment years 1982-83 to 1984-85 were disposed of by a single order. The petitioner then filed three appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of such order". If the Tribunal refuses to state the case, then, under subsection (2) of section 256, the assessee or the Commissioner may, within the prescribed period, apply to the High Court requiring it to direct the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order passed under section 254 of the Act. After the reference is made, either pursuant to an order under section 256(1) or under section 256(2), the same is decided by the High Court under section 259, in accordance with the opinion of the judges. Section 260(1), inter alia, provides that the judgment of the High Court shall contain the grounds for the decision and the Appellate Tribunal shall, on receipt of the judgment from the High Court, "pass such orders as are necessary to dispose of the case conformably to such judgment". From reading of the aforesaid provisions of law, it is clear that, by the reference which is made to the High Court, the Tribunal seeks the opinion on questions of law which arise from its order passed under section 254 of the Act. The jurisdiction which is exerci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision of the single Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. ITAT [1975] 99 ITR 552. In that case, there were five different appeals, though in respect of the same assessment year, which were disposed of by the Tribunal by a common order. The five appeals had been filed by the coparceners of a Hindu undivided family in respect of which an assessment had been framed. By the time the appeals were filed, the Hindu undivided family had been disrupted and that is why the erstwhile coparceners and the karta filed separate appeals. The Commissioner of Income-tax, however, filed a single application under section 256(1) before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that a single application was not maintainable. The Commissioner of Income-tax then filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, contending that, when, by common order, a number of appeals are disposed of, then one application under section 256(1) was maintainable. Prithvi Raj J. examined this question at length and, after referring to a Full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in the case of Mst. Lachhmi v. Mst. Bhulli, AIR 1927 Lahore 289, which had been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madras Sales Tax Act and the other under the Central Sales Tax Act. Two appeals were filed by the assessee to the Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the said appeals. Against the said decision, both the Department as well as the assessee filed revisions to the High Court. Two revision applications were filed by the assessee and two were filed by the Department. All the four revision petitions were disposed of by the High Court by a common order. The assessee, thereafter, filed only two appeals before the Supreme Court. An objection was raised stating that, as the High Court had decided four revision petitions, though by a common order, the assessee should have filed four appeals and not two . The Supreme Court repelled this contention and held that the assessee was "quite right in filing two appeals before this court". From the aforesaid observations, it would follow that, even though four separate revisions were decided by the High Court by a common order, two appeals before the Supreme Court were considered sufficient, one appeal being with reference to the Madras Sales Tax Act and the other under the Central Sales Tax Act, even though the assessment year was one and the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... derstood that each assessment year is separate from every other assessment year. Therefore, there is requirement to file a separate application for each year." The attention of the court was not drawn to the decision of Prithvi Raj J. and the Bench proceeded on the assumption that it was the settled practice of the court that a separate application under section 256(2) has to be filed in respect of every assessment year. In Kwality Restaurant and Ice Cream Co.'s case [1986] 158 ITR 188, another Division Bench of this court, D. K. Kapur J. being common, had to deal with a similar situation. In that case, after referring to section 256(1), it was observed as follows (at p. 191) : "` The relevant portion of this section is that the assessee may within sixty days of the date upon which he is served with a notice of the order apply in the prescribed form requesting a reference to the High Court. The most important part of the section is to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of such order. The interpretation of the section shows that if there are questions of law arising out of the order, then an application has to be moved. As there was only one order covering a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
