- (1.) THE reference containing the following two questions has been made by the I.T.A.T. at the instance of the Income Tax Department in this case: 1. Whether by passing book entree showing sale of Malba to Smt. Mansa Devi Mittal the ownership of the godowns could in law claimed to have been transferred to her?
(2.) WHETHER the suit filed by Smt. Mansa Devi Mittal against her husband Shri Hira Lal Mittal and the subsequent compromise decree were collusive and not binding on the Income Tax Department? 2. Four persons have been made an application seeking to intervene in this reference. We have heard Sri Rohit Agarwal, Advocate on behalf of four persons who want to become interveners. The application for intervention is virtually an application for impleadment. The persons seeking impleadment must show how the rights of the persons seeking impleadment are likely to be adversely affected by the decision in the matter in which intervention is sought. It has been argued on behalf of applicants that the decree with regard to which the second question, quoted above, arises has been subsequently got declared void by the applicants in a separate civil suit. This itself does not give any right to the applicants to intervene in this matter. The two questions on which opinion of this Court is being sought relate purely to income tax proceedings and are for the income tax purposes only. The answers in these questions will in no manner determine the rights inter se between various members of the H.U.F.
(3.) THE applicants have stated in their application that they want to bring true facts before this Court in this reference. Those true facts as set out in the affidavit basically relates to the inter se dispute between the members of the H.U.F. and do not concern this Court in this matter. In any case, a Court of Reference under Income Tax Act should not be converted to a civil court for the purpose of deciding civil dispute. It is also argued that the person who has claimed to be Karta of H.U.F. and has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondents -assessee is not the Karta. This is a pure civil dispute outside the scope of this reference.;