- (1.) The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat approached this Court failing in his attempt to get a statement of case being called for on the application filed under Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act which was dismissed by the High Court.
(2.) It appears that on the question of allowability of exemption under Section 10 (29) of the Income-tax Act in respect of certain income, the Commissioner of Appeals held in favour of the assessee and the Tribunal also affirmed the view of the Commissioner. The Department filed an application under Section 256 (1) , but the Tribunal having rejected the same, had approached the High Court under Section 256 (2). The High Court having dismissed the same obviously on a conclusion that no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal itself, the Department has approached this Court. The question formulated by the Department is as follows : (Para 6) "(I) Whether the claim of the assessee for exemption under Section 10 (29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of interest income of Rs. 6,03,3747 staff quarter rent of Rs. 5,147/-, Miscellaneous income of Rs. 5,647. 00 and supervision charges of Rs. 79,081. 00 was rightly accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -
(3.) A Similar question had been raised relating to certain income derived by the U. P. Warehousing Corporation which was pending in this Court, when this matter was placed before the Court and the said Civil Appeal relating to the U. P. Warehousing Corporation stood disposed of by order dated 20th November, 1990, calling upon the Tribunal to refer the question for the decision of the High Court. When this matter was listed before a Bench of two Hon'ble Judges of this Court, the Bench examined the two decisions reported in 187 ITR 54 [union of India, v. U. P. State Warehousing Corporation] and 237 ITR 589 [orissa State Warehousing Corporation, v. C. I. T. ] and being of the view that the latter decision has taken a somewhat different view with regard to the interest income and there is an apparent conflict, thought it fit to refer the matter to a larger Bench.;