JUDGMENT
G.G. Sohani, J.
1. The order in this case will also govern the disposal
of MCC No. 50 of 1982.
2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows :
An application was made by the assessee under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court for directing the Tribunal to state a case and to refer certain questions of law to this court for its opinion. That application was registered as Misc. Civil Case No. 136 of 1978. By order dated October 30, 1980, that application was allowed and this court directed the Tribunal to state the case and to refer the question of law as framed in that order. Thereupon the Tribunal stated the case and referred the question of law. This reference was registered as Misc. Civil Case No. 50 of 1982. Subsequently, on December 16, 1980, an application was submitted by the applicant before this court praying that the question of law framed by this court be amended. That application was registered as Misc. Civil Case No. 33 of 1981. By an order dated September 25, 1981, this court allowed that application and directed the Tribunal to refer the following question of law :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing a part of the salary paid by the assessee to Mrs. Indramani Mandelia for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 and to Smt. Taramani Mandelia, Smt. Pushpaben Gohel and Induben Parekh for the assessment years 1966-67 and
1967-68?”
3. After the question of law was amended, the Tribunal made another reference, which has been registered as Misc. Civil Case No. 19 of 1985.
4. At the time of hearing, Shri Chitale, learned counsel for the assessee, stated that the assessee was not interested in the reference being answered. Learned counsel relied on a decision of this court in Gajadhar Prasad Nathulal v. CWT [1970] 76 ITR 615, followed in Smt. Indramani-devi Parasrampuria v. Asst. CED [1983] 141 ITR 593. The contention of learned counsel for the assessee is that in view of these decisions, we should decline to answer the question referred to this court.
5. Shri Mukati, learned counsel for the Revenue, has not urged that the Department is interested in the reference being answered. Under the circumstances, following the decision in [1970] 76 ITR 615 (supra), we decline to answer the question referred to this court.
6. References disposed of accordingly.
7. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own
costs of this reference.
