Delhi High Court
Smt. Kusum Ansal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 January, 1991
Bench: B Kirpal, S Duggal
ORDER
The Court
1. In respect of the asst. yrs. 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 the petitioner has filed application under s. 256(1) praying for questions of law to be referred to this Court by the Tribunal.
2. A contention has been raised on behalf of the respondents, while relying upon Nawal Bihari Lal Goel vs. CIT and Kwality Restaurant and Ice Cream Co. vs. CIT , to the effect that a single reference application under s. 256(2) is not maintainable in respect of three assessment years.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Single Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs. ITAT as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. G. Khosla and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division Madras, 17 STC 473 (SC) and has contended that when a single order is passed by the Tribunal under s. 254 dealing with number of assessment years, then a single application under s. 256(1) and thereafter under s. 256(2) is maintainable.
4. In this question was squarely raised by the Department when in connection with 5 different appeals, which were disposed of by a common order, a single application under s. 256(1) had been filed. The Tribunal stated that the same was not maintainable. It was the case of the Department in a petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution that when by a common order a number of appeals are disposed of, only one application under s. 256(1) was maintainable. Prithvi Raj. J. examined this question at length and after referring to a Full Bench Decision of the Lahore High Court in the case of Mst. Lachhmi vs. Mst. Bhulli AIR 1927 Lahore 289 (FB), which was approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Narhari vs. Shankar , came to the conclusion that the contention of the Department was correct and a single reference application was maintainable. In support of this, the learned Single Judge also relied on yet another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. G. Khosla (supra). In K. G. Khosla's case, four revision petitions had been filed before the High Court, two by the assessed and two by the State in respect of two assessment years. The Supreme Court held that two appeals could be filed even though there were four revision petitions which were disposed of by a common judgment.
5. In Nawal Bihari Lal Goel's case (supra) it was never seriously contended this only one reference application was maintainable. This Court observed that it was a practice that separate applications have to be filed for separate years. It seems that the earlier judgment of Prithvi Raj, J. was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. In Kwality Restaurant's case (supra) it also appears that a concession was made that more than one application had to be filed if the common order disposed of a number of appeals. Nevertheless, the Division Bench observed that on a correct interpretation of s. 256 it was possible to contend that a single application was maintainable against a common order passed under s. 254 of the Act. Once again attention of the Bench was not drawn to the earlier decision of Prithvi Raj, J. in .
6. In our opinion, the matter requires a detailed examination and in order that there may be no conflict of judicial opinions, it will be appropriate that this question, namely whether a single application under s. 256(1) and/or 256(2) is maintainable when the Tribunal has disposed of, by a common order, appeals pertaining to more than one year and/or of different assesseds, is decided by a Full Bench.
7. We, therefore, direct that the papers be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders for placing this petition before a Full Bench for decision on the aforesaid question. As this question may arise in a number of cases, the matter should be decided as expeditiously as possible.
