Difference in reasoning alone does not require a third-Member reference where Tribunal Members agree on the result.

Where two Tribunal Members reach the same conclusion on the issue decided but give different reasons, there is no difference of opinion on the point in dispute. A divergence in reasoning alone does not trigger the statutory machinery for reference to the President under section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The order was treated as a concurring order, and no third-Member reference was required. The Revenue's application seeking reference was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a reference to the President of the Tribunal was required under section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the two Members had differed in opinion.

Analysis: The Members had reached the same conclusion on the relevant point and had only assigned different reasons for that conclusion. A disagreement in reasoning does not amount to a difference of opinion on the point decided. On that basis, the order was treated as a concurring order and the statutory machinery for reference to another Member was not attracted.

Conclusion: No reference under section 255(4) was required. The Revenue's application was rejected.

---