COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MANICKASUNDARAM M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these tax cases references under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), relate to the same assessee. Tax Cases Nos. 408 and 409 of 1982, both preferred by the Revenue and relating to the assessment year 1975-76, arise out of the same order of the Tribunal, which dismissed the Departmental appeal before it and allowed the cross-objection therein by the assessee. Tax Case No. 978 of 1986 is also by the Revenue against another order of the Tribunal in relation to the assessment year 1981-82. The sole question referred to this court in Tax Case No. 978 of 1986 is almost identical with the first of the two questions referred to this court in the other two tax cases, while the second of the said two questions therein is different.

(2.) THE first question in Tax Cases Nos. 408 and 409 of 1982 is as follows :

(3.) BASED on the abovesaid proviso to rule 7, learned counsel for the Revenue contends that the abovesaid firm, in which the assessee is a partner is "an unregistered firm, which has not been assessed as a registered firm under clause (b) of section 183 of the Income-tax Act" and that, therefore, in each of the abovesaid assessment years the abovesaid assessee's share of loss cannot be set off against the assessee's abovesaid individual agricultural income.