- (1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with a prayer to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question of law to this court for adjudication : "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,70,683 made under Section 40a (3) of the Income-tax Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)?"
(2.) EARLIER, the Tribunal declined to refer the aforesaid question to this court, vide order dated July 28, 1992 (annexure P-1 ). The assessing authority framed an assessment on March 26, 1987, vide order annexure P-3, and made additions to the tune of Rs. 12,70,683 as deduction of the aforesaid amount was not allowed under Section 40a of the Act. As such payments were made in cash and not by cheques or drafts, the aforesaid amount was not to be treated as expenditure. The appeal filed by the assessee against the aforesaid order in this respect was dismissed on March 18, 1988 (annexure P-4 ). The matter was taken before the Tribunal. Vide order dated October 25, 1991 (annexure P-5), the Tribunal allowed the deduction of the aforesaid amount as expenditure.
(3.) SHRI R. P. Sawhney, the advocate for the Revenue, while referring to the decision of this court in CIT v. Surinder Sugar Store [1989] 177 ITR 511 (P and H), has argued that the aforesaid question of law should be ordered to be referred to this court. In that case, the judges were satisfied that the question of law arose out of the order of the Tribunal, to refer such a question. No doubt, the question in that case is similar to the one referred to above. Such a decision could hardly be taken as a precedent, laying down any proposition of law. The contention that in all cases where similar questions are sought to be referred, this court should exercise jurisdiction under Section 256 of the Act is too wide a proposition to be accepted. The detailed facts of the case of Surinder Sugar Store [1989] 177 ITR 511 (P and H), referred to above, are not given in the judgment so that any opinion could be formed regarding similarity of the facts with the present case.;