Income-tax---

----Reference---Question concluded by earlier decision of High Court---Order directing reference could not be issued---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256(2).

It is now well-settled that if an answer to a question is self-evident or concluded by a decision of the High Court, then even though a question of law may arise, an order directing reference under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be issued.

Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India (1991) 189 ITR 81 (Delhi); Madan (D.B.) v. CIT (1991) 192 ITR 344 (SC); Sanghi Motors v. Union of India (1991) 187 ITR 703 (Delhi) and State Bank of Travancore v. C.I.T. (1986) 160 ITR 872 (Ker.) ref.

B.B. Ahuja and Anurag Chawla for the Assessee.

Nemo for the Commissioner.

JUDGMENT

B.N. KIRPAL, J.---The petitioner seeks reference of the following question to this Court:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition of Rs.7,15,372 under section 43-B of the Income-tax Act?"

Two Writ petitions had been filed in this Court wherein similar contentions were raised. Vide our judgments in the cases of Sanghi Motors v. Union of India (1991) 187 ITR 703) and Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India (1991) 189 ITR 81, this Court had upheld the validity of section 43-B of the Act and also interpreted the first proviso to section 43-B and came to the conclusion that the said provision was not retrospective in operation. The ratio of the said decisions concludes the matter in issue in this case.

Used counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the Calcutta and Patna High Courts have taken different views and special leave petitions have been admitted in the cases of M/s. Sanghi Motors and M/s. Escorts Ltd. against the decision of this Court. He, therefore, submits, relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case reported as D.B. Madan v. C.I.T. (1991) 192 ITR 344) and of the Kerala High Court in State Bank of Travancore v. C.I.T. (1986) 160 ITR 872), that a mandamus should be issued in this case.

In the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore (1986) 160 ITR 782), it was held by the Court that an arguable and debatable question of law did arise and., therefore, the Tribunal was called upon to refer the question of law.

In the case of D.B. Madan (1991) 192 ITR 344), it was observed by the Supreme Court (at page 345) that: "It is always open to the High Court to follow its earlier decision and answer the question of law one way or the other according as whether the view taken in the earlier case commends itself to it or whether, in its opinion, that earlier view needs reconsideration".

The observations on which reliance is sought to be placed by learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows:

"It cannot always be said that, in all cases where a similar question of law had been answered in an earlier case in a particular way, on identical question of law arising in- a later case would cease to be a referable one and, therefore, the course to be adopted is to reject a reference under section 256(2) N

We do not find any circumstance existing in the present case where a view different from the one which we had already taken can arise.

It is now well-settled that if an answer to a question is self-evident or concluded by a decision, then even though question of law may arise, an order under section 256(2) is not issued. As far as this Court is concerned, even if a reference is called for and a question of law referred, the answer to that question of law is self-evident because of the two decisions of this Court in the cases of Sanghi Motors (1991) 187 ITR 703) and Escorts Ltd. (1991) 189 ITR 81). It would be only multiplying the number of cases by calling for fresh references. It is no doubt true that special leave petitions have been admitted in the Supreme Court, but as far as this Court is concerned, the matter stands concluded.

For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is dismissed.

M.BA./2375/T Petition dismissed.