1. These two references at the instance of the CIT can be disposed of by a common judgment, as the facts as well as the question of law are identical.
2. The two assesseds are partners in a firm known as M/s. Prayag Dass Kanhaiya Lal & Co. The firm carries on a business in the manufacture of a paper known as 'Delhi Pulp Industries' which, it is common ground, is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 84 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time. The firm had been granted relief under Section 84 in respect of the profits derived from the industrial undertaking.
3. Each of the assesseds claimed in their individual assessments for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 that their share of income derived from the firm was also eligible for exemption under Section 84 of the I.T. Act and this contention has been accepted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Thereupon, the following question of law in each of the cases has been referred to us for our decision :
' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessed is entitled to relief under section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when it has already been allowed to the firm in which the assessed is a partner ?'
4. The above question has been the subject-matter of judicial decisions. The Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Arun Industries : 61ITR241(Guj) and the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Globe Engineers, (P.) Ltd. : 90ITR188(All) and in CIT v. Bharat Bhandar : 94ITR315(All) have held that such rebate is available to each of the partners in addition to the rebate granted in the case of the firm. It is seen from the commentary of Chaturvedi and Pithisaria on Income-tax Law, 2nd edn., Vol. 2, p. 1077, that the department has also accepted the view of the above High Courts. It may also be mentioned that the scheme of Sections 84 and 88 of the Income-tax Act has been subsequently modified and now Section 80A(3) has been introduced specifically prohibiting a double deduction as in the present case.
5. In these circumstances, it is unnecessary to elaborate upon the issue. The above judicial decisions have discussed the matter at length and given effect to the plain language of the section. We agree and we are of opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal was correct. The question referred to us is, thereforee, answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessed. There will be no order as to costs in these references.