- (1.) Having heard Dr. Pal and having considered the impugned judgment and/or order of the learned Tribunal, we admit this appeal for hearing for the assessment year 2007-08 on the following substantial questions of law: "I. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, where the assessee's income is partly agricultural and partly non-agricultural, the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in determining the fringe benefit based on composite income without apportioning the same in accordance with Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by limiting the fringe benefit on 40% of the income computed in accordance with Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ? II. Whether in view of the fact that the assessee's income is partly agricultural income and partly non-agricultural income, in determining the composite income the fringe benefit on which additional income tax is levied to be apportioned between agricultural income and non-agricultural income applying Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and the fringe benefit is to be levied only on 40% of the income computed in accordance with Rule 8 of the I.T. Rules ?"
(2.) It is submitted that on 19th May, 2011 an appeal has been admitted on the aforesaid ground in respect of the same assessee in relation to the assessment year 2006-07. Therefore, both the appeals should be heard analogously.
(3.) We are also informed that paper book has already been filed in relation to the appeal in respect of the previous assessment year.;