TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this court in CIT v. Anand Sarup [1980] 121 ITR 873, to conclude that if the karta of an HUF is a partner in a firm and his minor daughter is also admitted to the benefits of partnership in that firm, the income of the minor daughter cannot be clubbed with the income of the karta of the HUF and the income in the hands of the karta of the HUF cannot be treated as income of an individual under s. 64(1) of the Act. Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, an application under s. 256(1) of the Act was filed before the Tribunal for referring the following question of law for the opinion of this court: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income of the minor daugh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s placed on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Vindeshwari Trading Corporation [1978] 113 ITR 791, wherein the High Court had directed the Tribunal to state the case in respect of a question of law on which two Full Benches of the Allahabad High Court had taken one view which was followed by the Tribunal, since it was contrary to the view taken by a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. On those facts, it was concluded that since there is a conflict of opinion between two High Courts on the question sought to be raised by the Commissioner, which does not stand concluded by any authority of the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that no statable question of law arises from out of the appellate order of the Tribunal, The le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court. In the peculiar facts of that case, since there was a serious conflict among the various High Courts other than the Calcutta High Court, it was left to the Tribunal to refer the case to the High Court or Supreme Court. But in the case before us, the question of law involved in the case was fully covered by a Division Bench judgment of this court in Anand Sarup's case [1980] 121 ITR 873, and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in declining to refer the case for the opinion of this court because this court had already expressed the opinion on that law point and no useful purpose would have been served. Similarly, we find that no useful purpose will be served by issuing a mandamus under s. 266(2) of the Act because it has not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
