D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The questions: Reference was sought to be made on the following three questions: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the business carried out in the Allahabad Unit did not constitute a part and parcel of a single business carried out by the assessee? 2.Whether oh the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal had no material to hold that there was no interconnection, interlacing and interdependence between the various units of the assessee including the Allahabad Unit and accordingly its decision was perverse? 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax directing the Assessing Officer to disallow the sum of Rs. 18,40,250/-?" Respondent's objection:
(2.) In the statement of case the Tribunal had referred only the third question. Relying on this Mr. Shome wanted to contend that the entire argument of Dr. Pal is wholly misplaced. Therefore, the Court should rely upon only to the argument advanced by Dr. Pal in relation to the third question and there is no scope for this Court to intervene with regard to the questions contained in the first and second ones. 2.1. The learned Tribunal records that the assessee could not produce anything to show that there was interconnection and interlacing between the various units of business of the assessee. According to Mr. Shome, the accounts are kept separately and maintained separately. The Head Office is at Delhi. The registered office is at Calcutta and the units are scattered in different parts of India. Therefore, in the absence of establishment of interconnection and interlacing, the burden of proof whereof lies on the assessee, having not been established, the benefit and deduction cannot be allowed in respect of the closure compensation paid to the employees by the assessee, particularly when the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act denied approval to the closure. Appellant's submission:
(3.) Dr. Pal, however, disputed the contention on the ground that it is too technical a point. It is pointed out by Dr. Pal from page 34 of the Paper Book that the learned Tribunal in its decision after considering the materials placed before it had come to the conclusion that the Allahabad unit was under the same control and management as the other units, which continued to do business even after closure of the Allahabad unit. After having so held, the final conclusion to the contrary made in paragraph 13 of the said decision cannot but be perverse. 3.1. According to Dr. Pal the observation made in paragraph 13 is in effect an approach of the learned Tribunal towards its own finding earlier that this Allahabad unit was part of the same business under one control and management and which continued even after the closure. Dr. Pal further submits that this approach or appreciation is contrary to the settled principles of law and is in effect a wrong inference drawn from the earlier finding for the purpose of application of the principle of law in the established facts and circumstances of the case. According to him, once it is established by the assessee that there is a unity of control and management the interconnection and interlacing is established. He relies on the decision in B.R. Ltd. v. V.P. Gupta, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, 113 ITR 647; CIT, Madras v. Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd., 63 ITR 632 and Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (Central), Calcutta, 77 ITR 739. 3.2. Therefore, the third question is to be answered on the basis of the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to the unity and control of management. The scope:;