COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DESAI BROTHERS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for directing the Tribunal to state the case and refer to this Court a question for determination which is set out in the application. It is an accepted position that as far as this Court is concerned, the question has been decided in favour of the assessee by a decision of this Court in CIT vs. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. 1977 CTR (Bom) 132:(1978) 111 ITR 6 (Bom). In the circumstances, we do not see any reason for allowing the application because, even if the question is framed and referred to us, we will have to answer it in the light of the above decision in CIT vs. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra).

(2.) IT is pointed out by Mr. Jetley that a special leave petition from the above judgment is pending before the Supreme Court. That, in our view, can be of no assistance because until the question is decided by the Supreme Court, as far as we are concerned, we would be bound by our own decision in CIT vs. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra). A similar view was taken in IT Application No. 179 of 1983 decided on February 27, 1984, to which one of us (Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.), was a party. Our attention is drawn to the decision of another Division Bench of this Court (S. K. Desai and V. S. Kotwal JJ.) dt. October 4, 1988, in IT No. 1 of 1985 (Kewalramani Bros. vs. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 90 (Bom)where the Division Bench made the rule absolute in a case where a decision of the Allahabad High Court which had been followed by our High Court was under appeal before the Supreme Court. It appears that our earlier decision was not brought to the notice of the second Division Bench. For the reasons set out above, we follow the earlier decision of February 27, 1984. The rule is, therefore, discharged with no order as to costs.