COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. INDRADAMAN AMRATLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the CIT, Gujarat, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion :

(2.) SINCE this question is covered by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Chhotalal and Co. vs. CIT (1985) 44 CTR (Guj) 149 (FB) : (1984) 150 ITR 276, this and other companion matters have been placed for disposal before us. A short but interesting question has been raised as to what is the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court rejecting special leave petition to Appeal (Civil) No. 7736/1981 preferred by the CIT, against the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Sajjanraj Divanchand (1981) 21 CTR (Guj) 26 : (1980) 126 ITR 654 (Guj), which in the opinion of the Division Bench of this Court consisting of Thakkar C.J. and R. C. Mankad J. required reconsideration and, therefore, the Division Bench directed that the reference made in Chhotalal & Co. vs. CIT (supra) being IT Ref. No. 213 of 1976 to a Larger Bench, which ultimately overruled the decision in Sajjanraj Divanchand case, (supra). The decision of the Full Bench in Chhotalal & Co.'s case (supra) is reported in (supra). The question which has been raised is that the Supreme Court has rejected the special leave petition preferred by the CIT, against the decision of this Court in Sajjanraj Divanchand's case (supra) on merits and, therefore, it is tantamount to confirming the decision of this Court in Sajjanraj Divanchand's case and, therefore, the Full Bench could not have overruled it. We do not think that this contention is well founded. The reasons are obvious. A party moving the Supreme Court for leave to appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution has no right as a matter of course to get the leave. The general principle for grant of special leave is in exceptional cases where substantial and grave injustice is shown to have been done or where the case presents features of special gravity. In other words, the grant of the special leave depends on whether there is substantial question of law of public interest (See Mundrika Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1871).