RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) THESE three reference applications under Section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, are filed for three asst. yrs. 1973 -74, 1972 -73, 1975 -76, respectively seeking a direction to the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and refer certain question in each application said to be a question of law arising out of Tribunal's appellate order passed in ITA Nos. 1828, 1829 and 1831/Jp/1995 in the case of the same respondent -assessee by a common order. The reference applications Nos. 5/1996, 4/1996 and 7/1996 under Section 256(1) were all rejected by a common order dt. 24th Feb., 1997, along with RA No. 6/Jp/1996.
(2.) THE questions raised in all the three reference applications are identical, and therefore, we propose to decide the three applications by a common order. The case has a chequered history of multiple rounds of litigations and since the question raised in these applications is already subject -matter of a reference made to this Court under Section 256(1) by the Tribunal at the earlier stage and is pending before this Court, and about which there is no dispute that the questions referred to in the case of the assessee in DB IT Ref. Appln. No. 4/1992 are all questions of law, there is no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion that the Tribunal's order in question too does give rise to questions of law which are required to be referred to this Court.
(3.) IN view of the above admitted position, the Tribunal has clearly erred in declining to make the reference vide order dt. 24th Feb., 1997. The principle in dealing with the application under Section 256 is well -settled that if any question of law arises out of the Tribunal's order, the same has to be referred to the High Court for its decision unless the same can be said to have become academic or answer to which is self -evident, or settled by the decision of apex Court. Either of circumstances does not exist in the present case.;