- (1.) THIS application under S. 256(2) is in respect of asst. yr. 1981-82 wherein application under S. 256 (1) of the IT Act was rejected by the Tribunal on 23rd Dec., 1987. The following two questions of law have been mentioned in the petition for which reference is required to be called for : "(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not under an obligation to deduct tax at source under S. 194A of the IT Act, 1961 and consequently directing the ITO to remit the interest charged under S. 201(1A) of the IT Act. ? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not holding that unless there was a valid justification for crediting interest to any account, other than the account of the payee, the credit to the account, such as Interest Payable Account (in Profit and Loss Account) would amount to constructively crediting the payee account?"
(2.) THE point involved in this case is squarely covered by catena of decisions. The latest being in series, is the decision in D.B. IT Ref. Application No. 57/1989 (CIT vs. Oriental Power Cables Ltd.,) dt. 28th April, 1992 [since reported in (1992) 105 CTR (Raj) 76] and we have relied on the same and we have decided the application on 14th Oct., 1992 between the parties in D.B. IT Ref. Application No. 46/1988; (CIT vs. Zenith Commercial Agency) . In this view of the matter, this application is fully covered by the decisions referred to above and deserves to be rejected. We, therefore, refuse to call for the reference.;