1996 (1) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed above, were also ordered to be listed today through a supplementary cause list for analogous hearing as connected matters. These miscellaneous civil cases are registered on the applications of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal, presented under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and contain the undernoted question, categorised as one of law, for a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question for our opinion: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amended provisions of section 43B were applicable to the assessment year 1984-85 when the said amendment was effective from April 1, 1988 ?" This question of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rothers v. ITO. On applications under section 256(1), the Tribunal declined to refer and held that no referable question was in existence. We have heard Shri D. D. Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant/Department and counsel for non-applicant/assessee in some of these cases. Counsel for the non-applicants argued that there is no question of law for direction of reference. It is contended that a similar question and three grounds, as noted above, were projected in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 665 of 1992 (CIT v. Dhiraj Kumar and Co. [1997] 226 ITR 443). This miscellaneous civil case was dismissed by this court on January 3, 1996. In our view, no new point is pressed and these cases should suffer the same fate of dismissal as nothing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er cases of like nature, the Tribunal took the possible and plausible view to apply the law and "mitigate the hardships". Hence, this ground which is a branch of ground No. 1 only, is also held to be no ground of law for reference. (c) Ground No. 3: Mere pendency of a similar question before the apex court does not admittedly give rise to the question of law. In CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd [1976] 103 ITR 543, and in CIT v. Kotrika Venkataswamy and Sons [1971] 79 ITR 499, it is held that conclusion based on question of fact does not give rise to any question of law. In CWT v. Smt. Usha Devi [1990] 183 ITR 75 (MP), it is held that the pendency of same issues before the Supreme Court is no ground for directing the reference. The same vie....