TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (9) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1961, and respondent No. 2, Messrs. Sethi Wine Stores, was run as a branch of Messrs. Pagoda Hotel and Restaurant. In the return filed in the name of Messrs. Pagoda Hotel and Restaurant, the income from the hotel business as well as the wine business was shown and the status was claimed as that of a registered firm. The assessing Income-tax Officer for the years concerned noted that since the licence for running the wine business was in the name of Ramlal Sethi, no legally constituted firm came into existence because of rule 6 of the Excise Rules, according to which no transfer or sub-letting of the licence was permissible without the written permission of the Collector. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, rejected the claim of registration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Income-tax. It was urged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that no person of the name of Sethi Wine Stores existed during these assessment years as the Income-tax Officer has already assessed the income from the wine business in the status of an "association of persons" and, therefore, there was no justification for taking action under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act. It was also contended that the notice under section 148 was beyond the time-limit and the levy of interest was also challenged. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, vide its order dated September 21, 1972, held that the income from the wine business could not be clubbed with the income of the other firm, viz., Messrs. Pagoda Hotel and Restaurant, and as suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to take up the ground of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax on the question of levy of interest under sections 139(8), 215 and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the said authority is bound in law to take the point and to adjudicate it. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, vide its order dated August 12, 1983, rejected the application for reference on the ground that the combined application for all the four assessment years together is not competent. The said order was sought to be challenged before this court and a writ was prayed for to direct the Tribunal to decide the reference application filed under section 256 of the Income-tax Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he question of law which arise from such orders which are referred under section 256(1) or they arise from a common order (sic). The reference application is tenable irrespective of the fact whether the order under section 254 deals with one or more parties or assessment years. We may refer the decision of the Delhi High Court in Kusum Ansal v. CIT [1991] 190 ITR 24 [FB] in this connection. We may refer also to the decision of this High Court in Union of India v. ITAT [1987] 164 ITR 600, in which it was held as under : "In the absence of any specific rule under the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, and there being no bar against it under section 27 of the Act, one consolidated reference application could be filed in such a case. Moreover, responde....