COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BASANTA KUMAR AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE propose to dispose of the rules by a common order as they involve common questions of law and fact. These are applications under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, for short "the Act", requiring the Tribunal, Gauhati, to refer to the High Court the following purported question of law arising out of the orders of "the Tribunal"

(2.) THE Tribunal has refused to refer the question on two grounds : First, the income of the minors could not be included in the computation of the total income of the assessees in respect of their individual assessments. The learned Tribunal has held that the income of the minors derived from the partnership firms in which the assessees as Kartas of their respective "HUFs"were partners could not be included in the computation of the total income of the assessees in their individual assessments. The conclusions were reached on a perusal of the provisions of S. 64(1) of the Act. Secondly, the view taken by the learned Tribunal found support in some reported decisions of the High Courts. The Tribunal reached a firm conclusion that no question of law arises out of the order in both the cases. On such refusal the Revenue has preferred this application under S. 256(2) of the Act.

(3.) BEARING in mind the above principles let us proceed to consider the contentions. The common ground in both the applications is a general and vague statement that a question of law does arise out of the order of the Tribunal and nothing more.