Bhargava, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for a direction to the Tribunal to draw a statement of the case, and to refer the following question of law. : "1. Whether the ld. Tribunal was correct in law in not allowing deduction of Rs. 20,000 being payment made to Ayodhya Kumari Sah for the furniture in Roop Mahal under s. 48(ii) of the IT Act, 1961, while computing capital gain in its transfer ? 2. Whether the ld. Tribunal was correct in law in not allowing deduction of Rs. 1,970 as expenditure under s. 48(1) of the IT Act, 1961, while computing capital gain on sale of Roop Mahal ? 3. Whether the ld. Tribunal had material to hold that there was no proof that expenditure of Rs. 1,970 were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the capital gain ? 4. Whether the ld. Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee-family is not entitled to benefit under s. 54 of the IT Act, 1961 being an HUF ? 5. Whether the ld. Tribunal had material to hold that five-sixth of Roop Mahal was not used for the residence of the members in the two immediate preceding years ? 6. Whether the ld. Tribunal was correct in law in not allowing salary expenses of Rs. 2,334 and general expenses of Rs. 500 from the business income of the assessee? 7. Whether the ld. Tribunal had material to hold that there was no evidence on record to show that the expenses of Rs. 2,834 were incurred for business purpose ? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in view of the material on record, the ld. Tribunal was correct in law in sustaining the order of the CIT (A) setting aside the issue regarding computation of the property income form the self-occupied property to be done de novo by the ITO ?"
(2.) PETITIONER is an HUF and owns a house named `Roop Mahal' at Mount Abu. Most of it was in use and occupation for the residence of the members of the family. This property was sold along with the furniture and fixtures to the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur on 27th Aug., 1976 for a sum of Rs. 2,20,000. The petitioner incurred a sum of Rs. 2,520 in travelling and other legal expenses and claimed as deduction under s. 48(i) of the Act, but the same was disallowed by the ITO. On appeal, the CIT (A) partly accepted the contention of the petitioner and allowed the relief for Rs. 550 out of expenditure on legal fee but did not allow other reliefs. On further appeal, the Tribunal rejected the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal., The petitioner preferred an application for reference under s. 256(1) of the Act, before the Tribunal for referring the above questions. The learned Tribunal made out a draft statement of the case on 16th Sept., 1981 and referred two questions to the High Court. Suggestions on the draft statement were sought, and after hearing the parities, the Tribunal finally while drawing the statement of the case, referred only question No. 1 and question No. 4 though proposed to be referred by the draft statement, was not ultimately referred to the High Court. Hence the petitioner has moved this application under s. 256(2) of the Act. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. We find that none of the questions mentioned by the petitioner arise in the present case. They are not questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal and in our view, the Tribunal was justified in passing the order dt. 16th Dec., 1981 (Annexure `E'). Therefore, this reference application is dismissed, without any order as to costs.;