MADAN D B Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel on both sides. Special leave granted.

(2.) The High Court declined to call upon the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer a question of law said to arise out of the Tribunal's appellate order for its opinion. The circumstance that, in doing so, the High Court relied on a decision which in turn followed an earlier one in CIT v. T.S. Hajee Moosa and Co. (Mad) implied that a question of law did arise, but the question, in view of the earlier decision, was held as not a referable question of law. It is always open to the High Court to follow its earlier decision and answer the question of law one way or the other according as whether the view taken in the earlier case commends itself to it or whether, in its opinion, that earlier view needs reconsideration. But it cannot always be said that, in all cases where a similar question of law had been answered in an earlier case in a particular way, an identical question of law arising in a later case would cease to be a referable one and, therefore, the course to be adopted is to reject a reference under Section 256(2).

(3.) Inasmuch as, in our opinion, a question of law does arise, the orders of the High Court dated September 1, 1986 and November 2, 1989 are set aside and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is directed to state a case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court :