- (1.) ON an application filed under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that M/s Mannalal Nirmal Kumar Soorana & Co. was an independent, separate and distinct firm and that the assessee was a partner in that firm was a representative of his HUF ?" "Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the directions of the CIT(A) to exclude the share income earned by the assessee-firm M/s Mannalal Nirmal Kumar & Company ?" At the outset, learned counsel for the revenue fairly admits that the similar issues have been considered by this Court in CIT vs. M/s Hazarimal Milapchand Surana (DB IT Ref. No. 11 of 1985), wherein the questions have been answered in affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Following our order in CIT vs. M/s Hazarimal Milapchand Surana (DB IT Ref. No. 11/1985 (2002) 178 CTR (Raj) 80, we answer both the questions in affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Reference so made stands disposed of accordingly.;