Gauhati High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Him Containers Ltd., Bizari Veneer And ... on 12 January, 1994
Author: S.N. Phukan
Bench: S.N. Phukan
JUDGMENT M.K. Sharma, J.
1. These five applications filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, deal with a common question and, therefore, we propose to take them up together and dispose of them by a common judgment and order.
2. The Revenue has filed these five applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, praying for a direction to call for a statement of facts from the Tribunal to this court for its opinion on the following question of law :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not err in accepting the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decision that the amount of capital subsidy receipt is not to be deducted from the cost of plant and machinery for the purpose of determining the deductible depreciation allowance ?"
3. We may state that although the proposed questions of law as framed in the aforesaid five applications are not exactly in the same language, they arc substantially similar and relate to the same subject-matter. The proceedings relate to different assessment years as mentioned in these five applications.
4. We have heard Mr. D.K. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, and also Dr. Saraf and Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the assessee. Our attention has been drawn to the decision of this court in I. T. A. Reference No. 17 of 1988--CIT v. Meghalaya Plywood Ltd. [1993] 202 ITR 343. It is submitted that the issue in these five applications is squarely covered by the said decision.
5. On going through the records of the cases of these five applications and the ratio of the aforesaid decision, we are satisfied that the issues involved herein are covered by the judgment of this court in CIT v. Meghalaya Plywood [1993] 202 ITR 343. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Meghalaya Plywood [1993] 202 ITR 343 and we see no reasonable ground to take a contrary view from the above. Accordingly, we feel that since the issues arising for decision in these five applications are concluded by a decision of this court, any direction to make a reference would be academic. It has been a settled law that self-evident reference may be rejected.
6. As the controversy in these five applications is already concluded by a decision of this court, even if we go through the exercise of calling for a statement of facts, we will be only recording an answer in terms of the decision in CIT v. Meghalaya Plywood Ltd. [1993] 202 ITR 343 (Gauhati) as we respectfully agree with the said decision. Under such circumstances, we consider that exercising such power would lead to a futile exercise of power for merely recording an answer following the said decision. On a plain reading of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 256, it is clear that the High Court may not require the Tribunal to state a case, if it satisfied with the correctness of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal particularly if the said decision is in terms with the settled law laid down by the High Court.
7. Accordingly, we are satisfied that a case calling for a reference under Section 256(2) has not been made out in the instant cases and as such all the five petitions filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) are liable to be rejected which we hereby do. No order as to costs.