- (1.) THESE four applications are being decided by this common order. These applications have been filed by the Revenue under Section 256 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the Assessment Years 1983-84, 1982-83, 1982-83 and 1983-84 arising out of the the Income Tax Appeal Nos. 16/jp/87, 17/jp/86, 14/jp/87 and 15/jp/87 respectively, whereby the tribuanl rejected the petitioner's Application Nos. 46/jp/88, 49/jp/86, 48/jp/88 and 47/jp/88 under Section 256 (1) of the income Tax Act, 1961, for making a reference to the High court, vide order dated 10. 06. 1988.
(2.) THE question of law involved in these applications is as to whether M/s. Manna Lal Nirmal Kumar Surana and company was an independent firm or an extension of M/s. Hazarilal Milapchand Surana.
(3.) WE need not to elaboratly discuss the facts of the case as this proposition of law stood settled by this Court in case title Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hazarimal milapchand Surana reported in 2003 ITR Vol. 262 Page 573 observing as under: "whether the firm, Mannalal Nirmalkumar surana and Co. , is an extension of the assesseefirm, hazarimal Milapchand Surana or not, that is basically a question of fact and the Tribunal has found finally that Mannalal Nirmalkumar surana and Co. is an independent firm and not an extension of Hazarimal Milapchand Surana. That finding cannot be disturbed unless it is found that the finding of the Tribunal is perverse. There is no dispute about the facts on record that all the four partners have contributed capital as stated above, the sales tax and Central sales tax authorities have granted them registration number treating them as genuine, even the registration under the income-tax Act, 1961, has been granted to the firm, Mannalal Nirmalkumar Surana and Co. No registration can be granted unless the partnership firm is genuine. Subsequently, the registration has been withdrawn, but in that year also the Tribunal has given the direction to grant registration to the firm, Mannalal nirmalkumar Surana and Co. The issue was pending before this court for our consideration. We have decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Registration of the firm cannot be refused or the firm cannot be treated as just benami of the assessee-firm only on the ground that the partners of both the firms are common and the business is common. When the books are separate, the partners have contributed capital and the books of account are not rejected in the case of Mannalal Nirmalkumar Surana and Co. , we fail to understand how the firm Mannalal nirmalkumar Surana and Co. can be treated as just and extension of the assessee firm. Assuming for the sake of arguments, that the view which has been taken by the Incometax officer is possible but on that basis the view of the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse, unless the view taken by the Tribunal is impossible. In the absence of any material which suggests that the view taken by the tribunal is perverse, no interference can be called for in the reference matters. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no scope to interfere with the order of the Tribunal on this issue. ";