COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MANGILAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant (CIT, Bhopal) has filed these applications under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), seeking a direction to the Tribunal to state the cases and to refer the common question of law as contained in the applications and extracted below in respect of the two assessees, M. L. Jain, nonapplicant, in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 203 of 1992, Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 207 of 1992 and Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 216 of 1992 for the asst. yrs. 1983 84, 1984 85 and 1985 86 and non applicant/assessee, S. C. Nigam, in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 208 of 1992, Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 209 of 1992 and Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 210 of 1992 for the asst. yrs. 1983 84, 1984 85 and 1985 86 arising out of the orders dt. 16th July, 1991, passed by the Tribunal in I.T.As. Nos. 583, 584 and 585/(Ind) of 1988 after rejection of the applications registered as R. As. Nos. 301, 302 and 303/(Ind) of 1991 on 28th Nov., 1991, and orders dt. 10th June, 1991, passed by the Tribunal in I.T.As. Nos. 467, 468 and 469/(Ind) of 1987 after rejection of the applications registered as R. A. Nos. 146, 147 and 148/(Ind) of 1991 on 22nd Nov., 1991, respectively, for the above mentioned assessment years presented under S. 256(1) of the Act, for our opinion:

(2.) RIGHT at the threshold it needs to be stated that the applications and proposed common question also contained the receipt of additional conveyance allowance by the non applicants holding the post of the Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation, but the orders of the Tribunal did not contain the controversy in this regard. Even the questions proposed under S. 256(1) of the Act before the Tribunal were limited to incentive bonus and had not covered the additional conveyance allowance.

(3.) THE facts lie in a narrow compass. The non applicant/assessee received incentive bonus and claimed deduction of 40 per cent as expenses incurred to earn the same. This claim was negatived by the ITO and the first appellate authority. The Tribunal, however, accepted the contentions of the non applicant/assessee and allowed the appeals. The applicant felt aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal and as such filed the applications under S. 256(1) of the Act. The applications were, however, rejected on the assumption that there was no referable question of law. Thereafter the applicant filed these applications in this Court.