OM PRAKASH, J. - (1.) BY this application under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the Revenue requires us to direct the Tribunal to make a statement of the case on the following questions: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 82,42,876 being the excess levy sugar price was not taxable in the hands of the assessee-company in the year under consideration? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 5,80,098 on account of interest on excess levy price charged by the assessee? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the ITO to allow depreciation in the case of the trailers at the rate as admissible in the case of transport vehicles even though the trailers are not motorised vehicles."
(2.) BY the order dt. 6th July, 1983, the Tribunal rejected the application of the Revenue on the ground that similar question were pressed for the asst. yr. 1975-76 and that application was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dt. 28th Feb., 1980 in Reference Application Nos. 1060 and 1079 (Del) of1979. It is said by the Revenue in the instant application that the Tribunal's order for the asst. yr. 1975-76 was reversed by this Court under S. 256(2) vide order dt. 7th Oct., 1980 and the Tribunal was directed to refer a statement of the case on the aforementioned questions. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Tribunal to reject the application of the revenue is erroneous. The Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the order of the High Court which was passed much before. Shri V. Gulati, the learned counsel for the assessee, submits that for deciding the case for the asst. yr. 1976-77, the Tribunal relied on a case of Basti Sugar Mill, in which the reference application was rejected by the Tribunal and when the matter was eventually taken up to the Supreme Court in S.L.P. the Supreme Court also refused to accept the contention of the Revenue. Be that as it may, since this Court allowed the application of the Revenue under S. 256(2) for the next preceding year, we feel inclined to direct the Tribunal to make a statement of the case on the aforementioned questions.
(3.) THE application is, therefore, allowed. The Tribunal is directed to state the case on the question mentioned in the beginning of the order and send the same to this Court for its opinion.;