Summary
The High Court could not decide income-tax appeals on the merits merely by reproducing questions proposed by the assessee and Revenue. It had to frame appropriate substantial questions of law under Section 260-A(3). Applying A.A. Estate, the Supreme Court set aside the common order and remitted the appeals for fresh hearing after that mandatory step. It expressed no opinion on the underlying tax issues.
Issues
- Whether reproducing parties’ proposed questions satisfied the High Court’s obligation to frame substantial questions of law before a merits hearing.
Held
- Questions proposed by parties were distinct from questions framed by the High Court. The High Court had only recorded the former and admittedly had not performed the mandatory Section 260-A(3) step. (¶ 8–10)
- A.A. Estate governed the identical procedural defect. The appeals required fresh hearing after appropriate substantial questions were framed, without any Supreme Court determination of the underlying merits. (¶ 10–13)
Result
Appeals allowed. Impugned High Court order set aside; appeals remanded for fresh hearing only after framing appropriate substantial questions of law. All merits left open for decision strictly according to law.