S. P. Bharucha, J. - (1.) The questions that were the subject-matter of the impugned order of the High Court read thus:"(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the income of assessee become liable to be assessed in the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 and not in the years 1946-47 and 1947-48 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the remuneration received by the assessee from the Kalyanmal Mills Ltd. in the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 pursuant to the final decree passed in favour of the assessee on 14th December, 1965, could not be held to be income of the assessee which had accrued to him in the years 1946-47 and 1947-48 -
(2.) There was a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges who heard the reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. One learned Judge answered both questions in favour of the Revenue and the other learned Judge answered both questions in favour of the assessee. By reason of the difference of opinion, the reference was then heard by a third learned Judge, the then Chief Justice. He answered the first question in favour of the Revenue and the second question in favour of the assessee. This has given rise to cross appeals by the Revenue and the assessee.
(3.) It is common ground that the question that should be addressed, and should have been addressed, is only question No. 1, the answer to question No. 2 being merely consequential upon the answer to question No. 1.;