COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS LAMI WINE MERCHANTS
2002 P T D 1118
[251 I T R 882]
[Supreme Court of India
Present: S. P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde and Y. K. Sabharwal, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Versus
LAMI WINE MERCHANTS
Civil Appeals Nos. 4158 to 4164 of 1994, decided on /01/.
th
December, 2000. (Appeals by special leave from the judgments and orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated December 18, 1989, in I.T.C. No. 176 of 1989 and, dated December 26, 1989 in I.T.C. Nos.233, 234, 237, 239 and 240 of 1989).
Income-tax---
----Reference---Question of law---Firm---Registration---Firm formed in contravention of liquor rules---Whether entitled to registration---Question of law---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.185 & 256---A. P. Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970, Rr.38 & 39.
The question whether, in spite of contravention of rules 38 and 39 of the A. P. Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of registration under section 185 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is a question of law.
The Supreme Court accordingly directed the Appellate Tribunal to state a case to the High Court and refer the question of law for opinion.
Bhiari Lal Jaiswal v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 746 (SC) and CIT v. Nall' Venkataramana (1984) 145 ITR 759 (AP) ref.
S. Ganesh, Rajiv Nanda, S.K. Dwivedi, T.C. Sharma, S.W.A. Quadri and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant.
L. Nageswara Rao, Senior Advocate (S.K. Verma and V.G. Pragasam, Advocates with him) for Respondent.
ORDER
The High Court declined to call for a reference of the following question:
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefits of registration in spite of contravention of rules 38 and 39 of the A.P. Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970?"
It did so because of an earlier decision CIT v. Nalli Venkataramana (1984) 145 ITR 759 (AP). The Revenue is, therefore, appeal by special leave. The decision of the High Court in the case of Nalli Venkataramana (1984) 145 ITR 759 (AP) was considered by this Court in Bihari Lal Jaiswal v. CIT (1996)217 ITR 746 and was found unacceptable. It is, therefore, clear that a question of law does arise which requires the consideration of the High Court, in the light of the judgment in the case of Bihari Lal Jaiswal (1996) 217 ITR 746.
The civil appeals are allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The Tribunal shall refer to the High Court the question afore stated, having drawn up a statement of case.
No order as to costs.
M.B.A31087/FC Appeals allowed.