Rajasthan H.C : The Revenue has approached this Court for reference in view of the fact that the reference application against the earlier order of the Tribunal dt. 8th Jan., 1991, is pending before this Court

High Court Of Rajasthan

CIT vs. Mohd. Bux

Section 256(2)

N.N. Mathur & Harbans Lal, JJ.

IT Ref. Appeal No. 98 of 1998

10th January, 2002

Counsel Appeared

Sundeep Bhandawat, for the Petitioner : Anjay Kothari, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

BY THE COURT :

This is a reference application at the instance of the Revenue under s. 256(2) of the IT Act arising from the order of the Tribunal, dt. 7th May, 1998.

2. The assessing authority made the assessment at the total income of Rs. 5,90,300 against the returned income of Rs. 2,45,224. The assessing authority also passed an order under s. 186(1) of the Act refusing the continuation of registration. He also made an addition of Rs. 3,30,232 on account of clubbing the income of M/s Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali. The Tribunal vide order dt. 8th Jan., 1991, granted registration and deleted the addition. However, the AO imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000 under s. 272(1)(b) vide order dt. 22nd Feb., 1990. CIT(A) cancelled the penalty on the ground that the firm has been granted registration and the addition has been deleted. The order was upheld by the Tribunal on the ground that the very basis for levying penalty did not survive. The Revenue has approached this Court for reference in view of the fact that the reference application against the earlier order of the Tribunal dt. 8th Jan., 1991, is pending before this Court. The learned counsel for the Revenue has brought to our notice that said IT reference has been rejected for default in compliance. Be that as it may the order of the Tribunal directing registration and deleting addition has become final. Thus, no referable question of law arises from t he order of the Tribunal. The reference application is accordingly rejected.

[Citation : 265 ITR 326]

Malcare WordPress Security