- (1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ("the Tribunal" herein) has referred the following three questions for the opinion of this court, which are said to arise out of its common order dated November 29, 1972, passed in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 63 and 205/JP/1971-72 relating to the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 : -- "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that income of Curious House, Birdhi Chand Pannalal and Birdhi Chand & Sons were not includible as part of the income of the assessee, Shri Birdhi Chand, karta of M/s. Birdhi Chand Pannalal ? (This question was referred in Reference Application No. 129/72-73). (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income of Curious House, Birdhi Chand Pannalal and Virdhi Chand & Sons were not includible as part of the income of M/s. Birdhi Chand Pannalal ? (This question was referred in Reference Application No. 132/72-73) (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the status of Birdhi Chand as that of individual ? (This question was referred vide Reference Application No. 129/72-73)."
(2.) IN Addl. CIT v. Curious House (D.B. INcome-tax Reference No. 24/78, decided on November 1, 1985), [1987] 163 ITR 573 (Raj) relating to assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, it was held by us that the Tribunal was right in holding that the registration or continuation of registration could not be refused to the assessee. IN view of the finding given in Addl. CIT v. Curious House, 1987 163 ITR 573 and for the reasons mentioned in the order dated November 1, 1985, passed therein, we hold that the incomes of Curious House, Udaipur, Birdhi Chand Pannalal and Birdhi Chand and Sons, were not includible as part of the income of the assessee, Shri Birdhichand, karta of M/s. Bridhi Chand Pannalal. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, Mr. Rajesh Balia, learned counsel for the assessee states that in view of the answer given to questions Nos. 1 and 2, it is not necessary to answer question No. 3 and, therefore, submits that this question need not be answered. Mr. B.R. Arora, learned counsel for the Revenue, is agreeable to this. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the parties, we do not consider it necessary to answer question No. 3. Questions Nos. 1 and 2 referred to us are, thus, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs of this reference. Let the Tribunal be informed of this order in accordance with Section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (No. XLIII of 1961). ;