- (1.) THIS is an application by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), for directing the Tribunal to state the case and refer to this court for its decision, a question of law said to arise out of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal rejected the application under Section 256(1) on the ground that no question of law arose out of its order.
(2.) THE assessee set up its claim in respect of interest paid to Shri Gurprasad which became payable as a result of an order dated February 26, 1971, passed by the High Court on the basis of a letter of its advocate received during the assessment year 1973-74. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1973-74, a conclusion was reached that the liability in respect of interest had become ascertained during the assessment year 1972-73, as a result of the High Court's order being passed during that period, and, therefore, merely on the basis of the advocate's letter intimating this fact subsequently, the same could not be considered to have arisen during the next assessment year 1973-74. It was also observed that the assessee could make this claim during the assessment year 1972-73 and not in the assessment year 1973-74. THE Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) refused to rectify under Section 154 of the Act on the basis set up by the assessee, but the Tribunal has upheld that contention and directed rectification of the assessment order for the assessment year 1972-73 on that basis. The only question is whether the Tribunal was justified in taking the above view. It has been stated as a fact that the decision for the assessment year 1973-74 taking the above view forms part of the record and the basis on which rectification of the assessment order for the year 1972-73 has been sought is an admitted fact. For reaching the conclusion, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Mahendra Mills Ltd. v. P.B. Desai, AAC [1975] 99 ITR 135. On these facts relating to the contents of the record on which rectification under Section 154 has been granted, the ultimate question raised by the Revenue does not give rise to any question of law, since the contents of the record is undoubtedly a question of fact. Accordingly, in our opinion, no case is made out for a direction under Section 256(2) to the Tribunal. The application is, therefore, rejected.;