1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee and the questions referred are :
' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the income from commission, etc., at Rs. 45,631, Rs. 36,125, Rs. 21,685, Rs. 26,989, Rs. 26,035, Rs. 28,777 and Rs. 29,192, respectively, and from locker rent at Rs. 1,368, Rs. 1,290, Rs. 2,652, Rs. 2,499, Rs. 2,925, Rs. 4,989 and Rs. 5,586, respectively, earned by the assessee are not from carrying on the business of banking and, therefore, not entitled to exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the subsidies received by the assessee of Rs. 26,212, Rs. 29,900, Rs. 13,250, Rs. 6,000, Rs. 5,000, Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 10,000, respectively, and credited in the books of account under the head 'Donation & financial assistance' for meeting, part of the expenditure of a new branch was not a receipt in the course of carrying on the business of banking and was, therefore, liable to be taxed as income and being not entitled for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) ?'
2. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that in ah identical reference made by the Tribunal earlier in Misc. Civil Case No. 556 of 1979, this court by its order dated October 19, 1982, has directed the Appellate Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of case. The learned counsel for the parties stated that the situation in this reference is also identical as they submitted that the Tribunal, while deciding the appeal, has come to the conclusion that the income from commission, by issue of demand drafts, cheques and discounting of hundis, is an income which could not be exempted under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). But learned 'counsel for both theparties contended that the Tribunal while deciding the appeal has not given findings about the income having accrued from a particular source, although, according to the learned counsel for the assessee, the source was clearly stated but the learned counsel states that the Tribunal has not given any finding with regard to this. Under these circumstances, it was contended by both the learned counsel for the parties that the questions referred could not be answered. It could only be answered on the basis of the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and in the statement of the case, the Tribunal is expected to state these findings so far as the facts are concerned. It is clear that no such findings have been stated in the statement of the ease on the basis of which the provisions of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) could be made applicable.
3. Under these circumstances, therefore, in our opinion, it will be proper for the Tribunal to examine the matter and send a supplementary statement of case after affording an opportunity to the parties and determining the questions as to from what source this commission was earned and in view of this, it would be proper that the other question is also answered when the supplementary statement is received,
4. It is, therefore, directed that the Appellate Tribunal, Indore, after affording an opportunity to the parties, will arrive at its own findings and submit a supplementary statement of case within four months from today.
5. The case be listed after the supplementary statement is received from the Tribunal.