RAJESH BALIA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is an application under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, arising out a common order passed in group of cases in which this application relates to ITA No. 488/JP/1997 relating to the asst. yr. 1995-96 for which RI No. 39/Jd./1997 under S. 256(2) [sic-256(1)] of the Act has been dismissed by the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law said to be arising out of the Tribunal appellate order. "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the demands raised under S. 201(1) and 201(A) of the Act. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the principal officer (DDO) was justified in not deducting tax at source from conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance without certifying and verifying that the amount of these allowances had been actually incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the performance of the duties of office ?" The reference application has also been rejected by a common order in a group of reference applications including RA No. 39/Jd./1997 arising out of ITA No. 488/Jd./1997 decided on 5th March, 1998.
(3.) IT is pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties that this Court in DB IT Case No. 30/1999 which arose out of RA No. 41/Jd./1997 has allowed the application under S. 256(2) by its order dt. 20th Feb., 2001 [reported as CIT vs. Branch Manager, Bhinmal, LIC of India (2001) 167 CTR (Raj) 408] by holding the order of the Tribunal rejecting the application under S. 256(1) to be erroneous. Accordingly, following the aforesaid decision this application under S. 256(2) is allowed and we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the aforesaid two questions of law arising out of Tribunal's order for the opinion of this Court.;