- (1.) The Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in respect of RA Nos. 445 to 454/Del/1985 and RA No. 1251/Del/1985 for opinion to this Court: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in disposing of the appeals in an ex parte manner by hearing the Departmental Representative only on 16th Jan., 1985, thereby denying the applicant's valuable right of being heard ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the income from property 87, Civil Lines, Bareilly, and the income from furniture hiring, etc. belong to and was assessable in the hands of the applicant-individual and not in the hands of applicant's HUF particularly when the notary had confirmed the execution of declaration on 31st March, 1968 and the Tribunal had in the wealth-tax cases of the applicant also held that the property and the business were the ownership of applicant's HUF ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the estimates of sales made by the AAC and application of net rate of 16 per cent thereon to arrive at the net income from applicant's business in the business of furniture carried on under the name of M/s Jagat Furniture House in the assessment years ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in rejecting the Misc. Appln. dt. 27th May, 1985, by refusing to recall its consolidated order dt. 29th Jan., 1985, particularly when the assessee had proved reasonable cause for not appearing before the Hon'ble Tribunal on 16th Jan., 1985?"
(2.) The reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1970-71 to 1979-80.
(3.) We have heard Sri Vikram Gulati, learned Counsel for the applicant/assessee and Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the Revenue.;