TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), does not raise any arguable question and as such it is not necessary to make a detailed discussion of the facts and circumstances which have given rise to the filing of this application under section 256(2) of the Act. It would be sufficient for the purpose of disposal of this application to state that a question relating to the validity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kosh was created and further that the consent of all the major beneficiaries was not obtained by the trustees of the Santati Kosh before making the said transfer and that a direction of the competent civil Court was also not obtained so far as minor beneficiaries were concerned. It was, therefore, held by the Tribunal that the shares in question continued to remain the property of the Santati Kosh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... So far as the order of the Tribunal dated March 31, 1978, is concerned, only one argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee before us and it was submitted that a decision of their Lordships in Sardar Bahadur S. Indra Singh Trust v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 561 (SC), was not referred to by either party at the time of arguments before the Appellate Tribunal, but it was referred to by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Rules made thereunder as the Tribunal considered the decision in Sardar Bahadur S. Indra Singh Trust's case [1971] 82 ITR 561, in its judgment, without the same being cited by either party before the Tribunal and it was submitted that the assessee had no opportunity to explain the aforesaid decision before the Tribunal. We do not at all feel impressed by the argument advanced before us. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the procedure adopted by the Tribunal in referring to a decision of the Supreme Court, though the same may not have been cited before it by learned counsel for either party, when the Tribunal thought that it was relevant to the subject-matter of decision. No other point was argued before us. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that it is not at all necessary to call for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
