COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SRINIVAS AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these tax cases preferred by the Revenue under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), involve inter alia, a common question of law in relation to asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79. In T.C. Nos. 157 and 158 of 1984, the assessee-respondent is the registered firm P. L. Rangiah Chetty & Sons, Coimbatore, in T.C. Nos. 159 and 160 of 1984 the assessee-respondent is the registered firm Vijaya Textiles, Coimbatore and in T.C. Nos. 366 and 367 of 1984, the assessee-respondent is the registered firm Srinivas & Co., Coimbatore. While T.C. Nos. 157, 159 and 366 of 1984 relate to asst. yrs. 1977-78, the other tax cases relate to the asst. yr. 1978-79. In all the abovesaid three firms, one non-resident partner is one P. R. Srinivasan. He has, apart from his share of income from the three different firms, other incomes also from other sources. The abovesaid common question has arisen in the context of s. 182(3) of the Act. The said section runs as follows :

(2.) IN the above context only, the aforesaid common question of law referred to us arises and it runs as follows "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of s. 182(3) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that for purposes of determining the tax payable by the firm in respect of the share income of the non-resident partner the rate of tax to be adopted is the rate applicable to the share income and not the rate applicable to the total income of the non-resident "" * The above question is actually question No. 1 in T.C. Nos. 157 to 160 of 1984 arid the sole question in T.C. Nos. 366 and 367 of 1984

(3.) THIS second common question can be disposed of immediately, since the learned counsel for the Revenue fairly represents that the Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion it reached and that the said question should be answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue and accordingly we answer the same 4A. The abovesaid reaction of learned counsel for the Revenue is also understandable since if the abovesaid appeal to the AAC was not competent under the abovesaid s. 246(c), this reference itself would become incompetent. Further we are also in agreement with the reasoning of the Tribunal in this regard, which points out that the assessment is actually under s. 143(3) of the Act, though r/w s. 182(3) of the Act and since s. 246(c) of the Act provides for appeal against the assessment under s. 143(3), the appeal to the AAC would lie