High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench
State Bank Of Indore vs. CIT
Section 256(2)
Asst. Year 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77
A.M. Sapre & Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ.
IT Ref. No. 101 of 1998
28th April, 2004
Counsel Appeared
S. Waghmare, for the Appellant : R.L. Jain with Smt. S. Gupta, for the Respondent
ORDER
By the court :
This is an application made by the assessee under s. 256(2) of the IT Act requiring the Tribunal to refer the question of law proposed by the assessee for being answered by this Court under s. 256 (1) of the IT Act. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order passed by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal which may require this Court to answer the question proposed by the assessee. We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal dt. 21st March, 1998 (Annex. J to the paper book) and we find that while rejecting the application submitted by the assessee under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, the Tribunal has given correct and proper reasoning for rejection and for not referring the question to this Court under s. 256(1) of the Act. In short, the facts which were taken note of were that, in the case of the assessee, for the asst. yrs. 1973-74 to 1976-77, the Tribunal, in one appeal (sic–gave) certain directions to the AO to grant interest to the assessee on the refund amount from a particular date to a particular date. This appellate order of Tribunal attained finality as the same was not challenged by the assessee or even by the Revenue by taking up the issue to the High Court in reference. Accordingly, the AO worked out the interest in favour of the assessee. The assessee was not satisfied and, therefore, carried the matter to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) contrary to the order passed by the Tribunal virtually modified the order of the Tribunal and gave more relief to the assessee which the assessee was not entitled to get pursuant to the order of Tribunal. This order of CIT(A) was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal in second appeal. It is in this second appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and held that once the Tribunal issues the direction to the AO to grant interest from a particular date to a particular date and once the order of Tribunal attains finality, the lower taxing authorities, i.e., either AO or CIT(A) was bound to carry out those orders and had no jurisdiction to again pass any order contrary to the order passed by the Tribunal. It is against this order the assessee sought reference to this Court under s. 256(1) of the Act which was declined by the Tribunal by passing the aforesaid impugned order which has given rise to file this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act.
5. In our opinion, the Tribunal rightly did not make any reference to this Court for answering under s. 256(1) of the Act because no question of law arose out of the main order passed by the Tribunal against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The CIT(A), had no jurisdiction to act contrary to the order passed by the Tribunal and, therefore, such an order was rightly set aside by the Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue in their second appeal.
We, therefore, find no ground to call for any question of law for being answered by this Court in reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act. Accordingly, the application filed by the assessee under s. 256(2) of the IT Act is dismissed with no order as to costs.
[Citation : 269 ITR 459]
