JUDGMENT
1. We have heard Sri S. P. Gupta, advocate, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, at great length but we find that in the present case the assesses had filed a return of loss in the sum of Rs. 1,12,558. The net loss which was determined by the Income-tax Officer and allowed to be carried forward was in the sum of Rs. 1,06,995. This is to say only an amount of Rs. 6,000 as loss had been disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has partly upheld the claim of exemption of the assessee under Section 10(26B) of the Act. The contention raised on behalf of the assessee is that the claim of the assessee for exemption under Section 10(20A) of the Act has not been considered by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the assessee had not filed any reference application against the appellate order of the Tribunal. It, however, moved an application for rectification of the said appellate order of the Tribunal which was ultimately rejected by the Tribunal. It is against this order rejecting the application under Section 254(2) of the Act that a reference application was moved by the assessee before the Tribunal and the same was rejected by an order dated July 16, 1986. That is how the matter is before us under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the assessee and on a perusal of the various orders passed in the case, we find that in the present case in view of the loss of Rs. 1,06,995 as determined by the Income-tax Officer, there is no liability to tax. As such, the contention of the assessee
regarding exemption raised by the assessee as far as the present year in dispute is concerned is purely academic. It is settled law that the High Court will not call for a question on academic matters. In the circum-stances, the present application is rejected. Costs easy.