(1.) THE CIT, Bhopal, has filed this application under S. 256 (2) of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act') seeking direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the undernoted questions, categorised as of law, arising out of the order dt. 7th July, 1994, passed by the Tribunal in IT Appeal Nos. 466 and 335 (Ind) of 1994 after rejection of the applications on 12th Dec., 1994 registered as RA Nos. 86 and 87/ (Ind. Of 1994) for the asst. yr. 1990-91.
(2.) 'Briefly' stated, the 'facts' of the case are that in the course of assessment proceedings, credits in four names amounting to a total of Rs. 2,61,614 were noticed in the bookds of account. The four creditors Ganesh Shivaji Jagannath Beachor, Pyarelal Shankarlal and Daulayasingh Raghunathsingh are agricultirists. Ganesh Shivaji died before enquiries were made in the case. His son Narayan responded to the enquiries made by the AO, the AO, after due opportunity, concluded that four credits in question represented unexplained expenditure liable to be added to the total income and made the assessment accordingly. In appeal the CIT (A) confirmed the additions insofar as the credits relating to creditors Jagannath Beachor, Pyarelal Shankarlal and Daulayasingh Raghunathsingh were concerned, but deleted the credit relating to late Ganesh Shivaji represented by his son Narayan. The assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal with regard to dismissal of the appeal of the cash-credits relating to the aforesaid three alleged creditors whereas the Department filed the appeal so far as deleting of credit relating to Ganesh Shivaji was concerned. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the Department. The Department then filed the applications under S. 256 (1) of the Act which were dismissed. Thereafter, the Department has filed the application under S. 256 (2) .
(3.) THE Tribunal, on the aforesaid two applicants under S. 256 (1) declined to state the case and refer and the questions holding as under: