GIRDHARILAL NANNELAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these four references made under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the common question of law which arises for determination is the true meaning and scope of Section 187 of the I.T. Act, 1961. So far, there is no direct decision of the Supreme Court on the point and there is divergence of opinion between several High Courts. This reference to a Full Bench has been occasioned by the fact that there have also been conflicting decisions by the Division Benches of this court, sitting at the main seat, and the two Benches at INdore and Gwalior, which were rendered in ignorance of the earlier decisions. When the conflicting decisions of this court were noticed, these four references for the decision of the question by a larger Bench were made. This is how the aforesaid four references came up before us for deciding the common question involved therein.

(2.) BEFORE proceeding to set out the facts of each of the four references and the specific questions referred therein by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court, we shall mention the real point for determination and our answer to the same.

(3.) IT is clear that in Sections 187, 188 and 189, the Legislature has made special provisions applicable to firms relating to changes in their constitution, succession and dissolution. This exercise was unnecessary, if these expressions were to be construed only according to the existing general law. IT cannot be doubted that any matter for which a specific provision is made in the I.T. Act is to be governed by it, notwithstanding anything different or contrary contained in the general law relating to that matter. IT would be useful at this stage to refer to the guidance provided for this purpose by the Supreme Court while considering the nature of the law of income-tax. IT was pointed out in Rao Bahadur Ravulu Subba Rao v. CIT, 1956 30 ITR 163 (SC), as under (pp. 169, 173) :