JUDGMENT
Kirpal, J.
1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following questions of law to this court :
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has misdirected itself and acted against law in reversing its judgment given by it in its order dated June 27, 1985, in ITA No. 917/Delhi/83, when the entire material and evidence from its following observations in part 6 of the said order ?
We have considered the oral submission and perused the entire material on record including the paper book filed by the assessed.
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was evidence for the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to have come to a view different than that which was taken in order dated June 27, 1986, in ITA No. 917/Delhi/83 and for discarding the view taken in that order ?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal has misdirected itself and erred in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ?
4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has misdirected itself and acted against law in ignoring the material duly considered by it earlier and in giving consideration to matters irrelevant for determination of the question and then holding that the assessed was not the real owner of the property No. E-73, Kalkaji, New Delhi ?
5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal has misdirected itself and erred in law in ignoring the material duly considered by it earlier and in giving consideration to matters irrelevant for determination of the question and then holding that the investment in property No. E-73. Kalakji, New Delhi, falls to be considered in the hands of the assessed’s wife”
2. In respect of the assessment year 1976-77, the Income-tax Officer had come to the conclusion that property No. E-73, Kalkaji, New Delhi, in fact, belonged to the respondent and not to his wife. The Commissioner of Income-tax, in appeal, held that it is the wife who the owner of the property and the addition of the income in the hands of the respondent was deleted. An appeal was filed by the Revenue and, vide order date January 27, 1985, the appeal was allowed and it was held that the wife was the benamidar of the respondent. Against this, a miscellaneous application was filed by by the assessed and, by order dated January 30, 1986, the Tribunal recalled its earlier order dated June 27, 1985. Against the order of January 30, 1985, an application under section 256(1) was filed which was dismissed. Thereafter an application under section 256(2) was filed being I.T.C. No. 134 of 1987 (CIT v. K. L. Bhatia [1990] 182 ITR 361 (Delhi)). By order dated August 3, 1989, I.T.C. No. 134 of 1987 (CIT v. K. L. Bhatia [1990] 182 ITR 361 (Delhi)) was allowed and the Tribunal was directed to sate the case and refer the question of law.
3. Pursuant to the order dated January 30, 1986, the Tribunal reheard to appeal and the passed a fresh order dated June 12, 1986. It is against this order that an application under section 256(1) was filed which was dismissed and the present application under section 256(2) has been filed. It is evident that the present proceedings are clearly connected with the reference which has been called for in I.T.C. No. 134 of 1987 (CIT v. K. L. Bhatia [1990] 182 ITR 361 (Delhi)). In view of our order in ITC No. 134 of 1987 (CIT v. K. L. Bhatia [1990] 182 ITR 361 (Delhi)), we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court :
“Whether the Tribunal has misdirected itself and erred in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)”
4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid question will cover all the points in issue. The petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
