1989 (10) TMI 24

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that there was a majority opinion and whether its decision is in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act" In the Wealth-tax case, question No. (1) was framed as above with the only change in the provision of section 24(11) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which makes section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applicable. Question No. (2) was framed as under in one of the appeals : "(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that there was a valid partition of the immovable property known as 'Amritsar Cotton Mills' with effect from July 1, 1970 ?" In the two other a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellate Tribunal who have heard the case, including those who first heard it." A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the majority decision of the Bench of the Tribunal was to prevail and in case of difference of opinion among equal number of members of the Tribunal, the matter was further required to be decided by one or the other members of the Tribunal and according to the opinion of the majority of the members of the Appellate Tribunal who heard the case, including those who first heard it, was to prevail. Thus, it is the final conclusion of majority of the members of the Tribunal which was to prevail. In this view of the matter, the majority decision in the present case was that of the Judicial Member and the Vice Presid....