COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. LAKSHMI PRINTING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this application filed under Sub -section (2) of Section 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), a prayer is made that a direction be issued to the respondent -Tribunal to make a reference to this court regarding the alleged question of law formulated before it. In view of the Full Bench judgment of five judges of this court in CIT v. , the present petition is not maintainable as the point of law sought to be referred stands already settled by the aforesaid judgment. Mr. R.P. Sawhney, advocate, submits that after the grant of the special leave petition filed by the Revenue, a direction is required to be issued to the Tribunal for making a reference to this court, as according to him, the admission of the appeal in the Supreme Court by itself makes a question, the subject -matter of the appeal, to be an important question of law. Learned counsel has also relied upon CIT v. : [1967]66ITR619(SC) and CIT v. Dharam Pal Shanti Sarup : [1978] 114 ITR 411 in support of his submissions and to urge that while deciding a petition under Sub -section (2) of Section 256 of the Act, the court should not be concerned with the ultimate result which is likely to emerge.

(2.) IT is the acknowledged position of law that the powers exercised under Sub -section (2) of Section 256 of the Act are advisory in nature. Being a special jurisdiction, the High Court can require the making of a reference upon a question of law which has not been settled or decided by it or by the apex court. In view of the Full Bench judgment of this court in Sovrin Knit Works' case , no further action is required to be taken. The mere admission of an appeal in the Supreme Court without even staying the operation of the judgment of this court cannot be held to be a question of law requiring a direction for making a reference in terms of Sub -section (2) of Section 256 of the Act. The reliance of learned counsel upon the aforesaid two judgments is misplaced.

(3.) A Division Bench of this court in CIT v. held (headnote) :