V.K. SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THIS application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, has been submitted with the prayer that the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (for short, the Tribunal) be directed to refer the following question of law which arises out of its order dt. 20th Jan., 1986 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that there was no cessation of liability in respect of credit balance of Rs. 2,05,579 in the balance-sheet under the head `Current liabilities and provisions' and that being so, the addition of the aforesaid amount was not sustainable under s. 41(1) of the IT Act, 1961, or alternatively even under the heads of income from business or other sources?"
(2.) THE Tribunal vide its order dt. 29th April, 1987, rejected the application holding that no question of law arises and the findings arrived at are purely findings of facts. In respect of asst. yrs. 1972- 73, 1973-74 and 1979-80 it was observed that the issue was not at all related to the outstanding liability remaining unpaid. From a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal under s. 256(1), it is evident that the Tribunal found that the question mentioned above does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal in respect of asst. yrs. 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1979-80. It was only in respect of the asst. yr. 1978-79 and considering it to be a finding of fact the application was refused. We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal. The questions in respect of the asst. yrs. 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1979-80 are altogether different. It is really strange that the reference application has been framed in such a manner which may be because of the negligence of the officer concerned or connivance that such type of applications are submitted before the Tribunal, where only one question has been raised and in the said question even the figure which is being charged has been given, it is not understandable as to how the said question could relate to other years. What was the object of not filing proper application for the asst. yrs. 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1979- 80 could be a matter of enquiry and the CBDT to whom a copy of this order may be sent, shall look into the matter and the loss caused to the Government shall be recovered from the officer in default. So far as the asst. yr. 1978-79 is concerned, from the order passed in appeal by the Tribunal, it is clear that the additions made under s. 41(1) of the Act have been discussed in paras Nos. 20, 23 and 24 respectively in respect of Rs. 86,169, Rs. 79,555 and Rs. 39,835 which are unpaid wages. The assessee was required to give the names and addresses of the parties. The CIT (A) deleted these additions on the ground that the amount was not written in profit and loss accounts and hence the provisions of s. 41(1) are not applicable. The Tribunal found that the amounts have not been paid till date. The names and addresses of the labourers have not been given and it is not known whether they are alive or not. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and that of the ITO was restored as per the order dt. 9th April, 1985. The only question which has been raised in the reference application under s. 256 has been reproduced above. The finding which has been given by the Tribunal in its appellate order is recorded in para 20 in respect of figure of Rs. 86,169 as under : "Hence we restore the order of the ITO and set aside that of the CIT(A) for the reasons which we have mentioned above. Hence, we decide this issue in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee". In respect of figures of Rs. 79,555 and Rs. 39,835 in para Nos. 23 and 24, on the finding recorded in para 22 the order has been passed. It is not understandable as to why the reference application was submitted by the Revenue in respect of point which was decided in its favour under s. 256(1) for the year 1978-79. There being no question submitted under s. 256(1) in respect of the asst. yrs. 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1979-80 and the question for asst. yr. 1978-79 having already been decided in favour of the Revenue by the Tribunal, no direction can be given under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 for making reference to this Court. Consequently, the reference application being misconceived, is dismissed with no order as to costs.;