High Court Of Allahabad
CIT vs. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd.
Section 256(2)
Om Prakash & M. Katju, JJ.
IT Appln. No. 138 of 1995
23rd January, 1996
BY THE COURT
Though the assessee has been sufficiently served, none appeared for the assessee and, therefore, we have heard learned standing counsel only.
2. This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, by the Revenue requiring us to direct the Tribunal to refer the following questions for the opinion of this Court :
“(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the view of the CIT (Appeals) on the issue mentioned above ?
(2) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the relief allowed by the learned CIT (Appeals) in respect of additions made by the AO under s. 40A(2) ?
(3) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the reliefs allowed by the learned CIT (Appeals) in respect of additions made by the AO under s. 43B ? (4) Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in confirming the directions of the learned CIT (Appeals) to the AO not to charge interest under s. 216 ?”
Upon hearing learned standing counsel and upon a perusal of the record, we are of the view that the above mentioned questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are questions of law and, therefore, we direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the said three questions only to this Court.
The application is partly allowed.
[Citation: 220 ITR 455]