Y.R.MEENA, J. - (1.) ON an application filed under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that M/s Hazari Mal Milap Chand Surana and M/s Mannalal Nirmal Kumar Surana and Co. could not in law be treated as one firm for purposes of assessment".
(2.) WHETHER M/s Mannalal Nirmalkumar Surana and Co. and assessee-firm M/s Hazarimal Milapchand should be treated as one or not that issue has been considered by us in length in the case of Hazarimal Milapchand Surana in D.B. IT Ref. No. 11/85 [reported as CIT vs. Hazarimal Milapchand Surana (2002) 178 CTR (Raj) 50-Ed] wherein, we have taken the view that M/s Mannalal Nirmalkumar Surana & Co. is not an extension of assessee-firm M/s Hazarimal Milapchand but an independent firm and genuine firm and the income of M/s Mannalal Nirmalkumar cannot be included in the income of M/s Hazarimal Milapchand Surana. Following our view in D.B. IT Ref. No. 11/85 [Hazarimal Milapchand Surana (supra)] we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. In the result we answer the question in affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference so made stands disposed of accordingly.;