COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. H D AGARWALA AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this set of connected and consolidated INcome-tax References Nos. 240, 241, 249, 250 and 251 of 1976, the larger question that looms for adjudication may be formulated in the following terms :

(2.) POINTEDLY at issue is the correctness of the earlier view of the Division Bench in CIT v. S.K. Sahana & Sons Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 437 (Pat) answering the identical question in the affirmative.

(3.) THESE cases originally came up for consideration by a Division Bench presided over by my learned brother, Uday Sinha J. In his lucid order of reference to the larger Bench, it was noticed that there appeared a sharp cleavage of opinion within the court itself between the cases in S.K. Sahana & Sons Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 437 and CIT v. Pure Dhansar Coal Co. [1985] 154 ITR 857 (Pat) on the one hand and Khas Benedih Colliery v. CIT [1974] BBCJ 440 (Pat) and CIT v. Kuya & Khas Kuya Colliery Co. [1985] 156 ITR 206 (Pat) on the other. It was consequently found appropriate that the question of the interpretation of the lease granted by the assessee should be considered by a larger Bench for deciding whether the earlier case in S. K. Sahana & Sons Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 437 was correctly decided or not. To facilitate the resolution of the point, it was further directed that the agreements executed by the assessee, S.K. Sahana, in the present cases and the lease deed under consideration in Khas Benedih Colliery's case [1974] BBCJ 440 should be incorporated in the supplementary paper book for ease of reference, which has accordingly been done. That is how the matter is before us.