COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL Vs. SHIV PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IF a question of law has been settled by this court after dissenting with the view taken by another High Court and if thereafter similar cases come up before the Income-tax Tribunals within the jurisdiction of this court or before this court, can it be said that question of law arises within the meaning of Section 256 (1) or 256 (2) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, followed a Division Bench judgment of this court in CIT v. Anand Samp [1980] 121 ITR 873, to conclude that if the karta of an HUF is a partner in a firm and his minor daughter is also admitted to the benefits of partnership in that firm, the income of the minor daughter cannot bo clubbed with the income of the karta of the HUF and the income in the hands of the karta of the HUF cannot be treated as income of an individual under Section 64 (1) of the Act. Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, an application under Section 256 (1) of the Act was filed before the Tribunal for referring the following question of law for the opinion of this court: "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income of the minor daughter, Miss Aarti, from the firm, M/s. Bharat Iron and Steel Rolling Mills, was not includible in the individual assessment of the assessee under Section 64 (1) (iii) of the I. T. Act, 1961 ?"

(3.) THE Tribunal rejected the application for reference with the following. observations : " We find that the Tribunal in fact confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the issue before it because the Commissioner had followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-lax v. Anand Samp [1980] 121 ITR 873. In this view of the matter, we find that the Hon'ble High Court has already expressed an opinion on the issue on which the Revenue is seeking a reference. In our opinion, we are not entitled to burden the Hon'ble High Court with unnecessary litigation with regard to an issue on which we have already been advised. We, therefore, reject the reference application. "