High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench
CIT vs. Vijaykumar Rajendrakumar & Co.
Sections 256(2)
Asst. Year 1983-84, 1984-85, 1986-87, 1987-88
Deepak Verma & N.K. Jain, JJ.
IT Ref. No. 64 of 1997
17th July, 2002
Counsel Appeared
R.L. Jain, for the Applicant : B.K. Joshi, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
By the Court :
By this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) as it stood before the Amendment of 1999, the applicant-Department seeks direction to the Tribunal to refer the question, as stated in para 8 of the application, for answer by this Court.
2. From the averments made in the application, it appears that a licence under the M.P. Excise Act, was granted in an individual name. However, the licensee constituted a registered firm with some more persons and carried on business on the basis of the said licence. Later on, he applied, for registration of the firm and continuation thereof. The assessing authority declined the prayer. However, in appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the order of the assessing authority. The order of the CIT was affirmed in second appeal by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also rejected applicant’s prayer made under s. 256(1).
3. The matter pertains to the asst. yr. 1986-87. The Tribunal has declined applicant’s prayer mainly on the basis of the decision of this Court in the same matter, pertaining to previous assessment years. It is, however, submitted by Shri R.L. Jain, the learned counsel for the applicant, that the order of this Court is the subject-matter before the Supreme Court. He also cited a Supreme Court decision in Biharilal Jaiswal vs. CIT (1996) 130 CTR (SC) 143 : (1996) 217 ITR 746 (SC).
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the decision in Biharilal Jaisawal’s case (supra), we deem it proper to call a reference from the Tribunal for resolution of the said question. Accordingly, we allow the application and direct the Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, to refer the following question to be answered by this Court: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing to grant registration of the firm for the asst. yrs. 1983-84 and 1984-85 and continuation of registration for the asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1987-88 ?”
5. Thus, the application stands disposed of, as aforesaid but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Tribunal with reference to its order dt. 13th May, 1997, passed in R.A. Nos. 32-33 (Indore) of 1997.
[Citation : 269 ITR 447]
