BIHARILAL JAISWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred against the judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejecting the applications filed by the assesses under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had requested the High Court to direct the Tribunal to state the following question of law for its opinion :

(2.) The High Court rejected the applications on the ground that the question sought to be raised by the assessee was concluded against it by two decisions of that Court, viz., Commr. of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh vs. Sheonarayan Harnarayan, 1973 Tax LR 1186, and Commr. of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh vs. Pagoda Hotel and Restaurant, (1974) 93 ITR 271.

(3.) A licence for retail sale of country spirit under supply system in Form C. S. No. 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Rules, 1960 was obtained by Biharilal Jaiswal in respect of twenty two out-stall shops in Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh in the public auction held in January, 1968. The licence was effective for the period commencing on April 1, 1968 and ending with March 31, 1969. Biharilal Jaiswal entered into a partnership with ten other persons to conduct the business under the said licence. The partnership is evidenced by the deed dated August 30, 1968. An application for grant of registration to the said firm under Sections 184 and 185 of the Act was filed in Form-11. The Income-tax Officer rejected the application for registration on the ground that the partnership having been formed in violation of clause (VI) of the General Licence Conditions prescribed by the Madhya Pradesh Excise Rules is illegal and cannot, therefore, claim registration under the Income-tax Act. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the Income-tax Officer to grant registration as prayed for, against which order the Revenue appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal reversed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the Income-tax Officer. Thereupon, the assessee applied to the Tribunal to refer two questions under Section 256(1) of the Act which was refused. The application to the High Court under Section 256(2) to refer the aforesaid (Consolidated) question was also rejected, as sated above.