The dividend income received by the assessee in the present case was income arising to him from assets held under a revocable transfer, this income was liable to be included in the total income of his vendor. If so, any claim for refund could be made only by his vendor, but so far as he himself is concerned, he is expressly excluded by the terms of s. 48(3).

CHAKRAVARTTI, C.J.

1. BY a single reference, the Tribunal has referred to this Court two questions of law, said to be common to applications for refund made by eight different persons with respect to two consecutive years. It was conceded on behalf of the assessees that while a consolidated reference concerning the assessment of the same assessee for different years could be made, if the question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order passed in regard to them was common, no such consolidated reference was permissible in respect of assessments of or applications by different assessees. In the present case, there is a further irregularity. On the one hand, the cases of eight different assessees have been combined in a single reference. On the other hand all the necessary papers regarding even one of them have not been included in the paper book. Apparently, the Tribunal intended that the case of Tarunendra Nath Tagore should be taken as typical of the whole group, but while purporting to include in the paper book the respondent's reply to his application under s. 66(1) of the Act, as the index would show, they have in fact included the respondent's reply to the application of another assessee, namely, Projen Ganguly. In the circumstances above stated, it will appear that if we are to entertain the reference at all, we must, in any event, overlook some irregularity. It was suggested by the learned counsel for the assessees that we might answer the questions with reference to the case of Tarunendra Nath Tagore, though even as regards his case the paper book was defective and that we might direct the Tribunal to make proper references in respect of the cases of the other assessees. We accede to that suggestion.

2. THE facts as found are as follows. In 1950 the bulk of the shares of a company called Austin Distributors Ltd. was owned by two groups of non-residents who have been compendiously described as the Thomson group and the Wilson Group. Of the 40,000 shares of the face value of Rs. 10 each into which the share capital of the company was divided the Thomsons held 20,749 shares and the Wilsons 18,750 shares. Only 501 shares were thus held by other persons. On the 25th March, 1950, all the 39,499 shares held by the Thomsons and the Wilsons were sold by separate transactions to eight different persons, of whom some purchased 3,500 shares each and some a slightly smaller number. THE sales appear to have been cum-dividend, already declared on the shares. After the transaction, the company paid the dividends to the purchasers and the dividend was necessarily paid out of funds on which the company had already paid income-tax at the company rate. On receipt of the dividends, the purchasers, who do not appear to have been otherwise assessable to tax, applied for refund under s. 48 of the IT Act. THE applications of three of them were with respect to three assessment years, namely, 1949- 50, 1950-51 and 1951-52, while those of the rest, including Tarunendra Nath Tagore, related only to the asst. yrs. 1950-51 and 1951-52. THE ITO rejected the applications in the view that the transfers were revocable transfers within the meaning of s. 16(1)(c) of the Act and, therefore, the dividend income was to be deemed to be the income of not the purchasers but the vendors who only would have the right to claim a refund, if they were otherwise entitled thereto. On appeal by the assessee, the ITO's decision was reversed by the AAC. He held that the assessees being registered shareholders of a limited company, the tax deducted by the company and paid to Government before payment of the dividends was paid on their behalf and consequently it would be they would be entitled to claim refund of any excess of tax thus paid on their behalf. Sec. 48(3) of the Act was held to have no application. THE decision of the AAC was, in its turn, reversed by the Tribunal which restored the order of the ITO. THE Tribunal held that during the years in question w