(1.) IN respect of the asst. yrs. 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 the petitioner has filed one application under S. 256(1) praying for question 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 Bjihari Lal Goel vs. CIT (1983) 32 CTR (Del) 287: (1983) 140 ITR 979 (Del) and Kwality Restaurant & Ice Cream Co. vs. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 188 (Del), to the effect that a single reference application under s. 256(2) is not maintainable in respect of three assessment years.
(3.) IN 1975 CTR (Del) 142: (1975) 99 ITR 552 (Del) this question was squarely realised 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. Shanker AIR 1953 SC 419, 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 assessee and two by the State in respect of two assessment year. The supreme Court held that two appeals could be filed even though there were four revision petitions which were disposed of by a common judgement.