High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (WCG.) Co. Ltd. vs. CIT
Asst. Year 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68
G.G. Sohani & P.D. Mulye, JJ.
Misc. Civil Case No. 19 of 1985
24th June, 1987
Chitale with Puntembekar, for the Petitioner : B.K. Rawal, for the revenue.
G. G. SOHANI, J.
The order in this case will also govern the disposal of MCC No. 50 of 1982.
2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows :
An application was made by the assessee under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, to this Court for directing the Tribunal to state a case and to refer certain questions of law to this Court for its opinion. That application was registered as Misc. Civil Case No. 136 of 1978. By order dated October 30, 1980, that application was allowed and this Court directed the Tribunal to state the case and to refer the question of law as framed in that order. Thereupon the Tribunal stated the case and referred the question of law. This reference was registered as Misc. Civil Case No. 50 of 1982. Subsequently, on December 16, 1980, an application was submitted by the applicant before this Court praying that the question of law framed by this Court be amended. That application was registered as Misc. Civil Case No. 33 of 1981. By an order dated September 25, 1981, this Court allowed that application and directed the Tribunal to refer the following question of law :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing a part of the salary paid by the assessee to Mrs. Indramani Mandelia for the asst. yrs. 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 and to Smt. Taramani Mandelia, Smt. Pushpaben Gohel and Induben Parekh for the asst. yrs. 1966-67 and 1967-68 ? “
After the question of law was amended, the Tribunal made another reference, which has been registered as Misc. Civil Case No. 19 of 1985.
At the time of hearing, Shri Chitale, learned counsel for the assessee, stated that the assessee was not interested in the reference being answered. Learned counsel relied on a decision of this Court in Gajadhar Prasad Nathulal vs. CWT (1983) 35 CTR (MP) 61:(1970) 76 ITR 615(MP), followed in Smt. Indramanidevi Parasrampuria vs. Asst. CED (1983) 141 ITR 593(MP). The contention of learned counsel for the assessee is that in view of these decisions, we should decline to answer the question referred to this Court.
Shri Mukati, learned counsel for the Revenue, has not urged that the Department is interested in the reference being answered. Under the circumstances, following the decision in (1970) 76 ITR 615 (supra), we decline to answer the question referred to this Court.
In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. References disposed of accordingly.
Decision in favour of Answer declined.
[Citation : 169 ITR 577]