COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. MAHESH MUNJAL HUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for reference of the following question of law to this court :

(2.) THE facts which are necessary for determination of this application are that the assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 1984-85 in the status of the Hindu undivided family (specified) declaring a net income of Rs. 42,810. The source of income was shown as share from the firm, dividend and interest. The assessing authority held that the income shown by the assessee is actually assessable in his individual hand and not in the status of the Hindu undivided family. The assessing authority passed an order dated March 12, 1987, and directed the issue of penalty notice. The respondent filed an appeal against the order of assessment, which was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana. The appellate authority held that there was no wilful attempt on the part of the appellant to lower his income. The appellate authority directed the Income-tax Officer to see whether any interest under Section 215 of the Income-tax Act is still chargeable even after excluding the addition made in the share income. The Revenue filed appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of the appellate authority. The Tribunal dismissed the same vide order dated July 10, 1991. Thereafter, the Revenue filed an application under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for reference of the following two questions of law :

(3.) SHRI Sawhney, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that after having held that question No. 1 deserves to be referred to the High Court for adjudication, the Tribunal ought to have referred the second question regarding interest for adjudication by the High Court. Learned counsel submitted that it was not open to the Tribunal to make an adjudication on the merits of the issue. Learned counsel invited our attention to the decisions of this court in CIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. [1987] 163 ITR 851 ; CIT v. Punjab Business and Supply Co. Pot. Ltd [1986j 159 ITR 664 and of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. J. K. Synthetics Ltd. (No. 1) [1990] 181 ITR 505.