( 1 ) AS questions referred to this court in all these references are common, at the request of the learned advocates, the references are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) AT the instance of the revenue, the following two questions of law have been referred to this court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench c, under the provisions of sec. 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the status of the assessee company should be treated as public limited company? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that notwithstanding the provisions of sec. 2 (18) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the status of the assessee company should be taken as a public limited company?"

( 3 ) THE short question which has arisen in all these references is whether the assessee company should be treated as a public limited company or in other words a "company in which the public are substantially interested" for the Assessment Years 1978-79 to 1980-81. For the said assessment years different references have been made and the said references, as stated hereinabove, are being disposed of together by this common judgment.

( 4 ) THE facts and circumstances in which the above questions have arisen are as under :-

( 5 ) THE assessee company was initially a private limited company within the meaning of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and was being assessed as such. During the relevant assessment years, initially, the Assessing Officer had assessed the assessee as a public limited company because more than 25 per cent shares of the company were held by one or more body corporate. In the circumstances, the assessing officer, looking to the provisions of sec. 43a of the Companies Act, considered the assessee as a public limited company and assessed the company as a "company in which the public are substantially interested" as per the provisions of sec. 2 (18) of the Act.

( 6 ) THE Commissioner of Income-tax did not think the assessment to be proper and, therefore, he exercised his powers under the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and after hearing the assessee, came to the conclusion that the company was not a "company in which the public are substantially interested" and he assessed the company as a private limited company. For doing so, he had considered the fact that, by virtue of the clauses incorporated in the Articles of Association of the assessee-company, there was a restriction on the transfer of shares and as the shares of the assessee company were not freely transferable, the CIT did not consider the assessee as a public limited company.

( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the assessee company filed appeals for the relevant assessment years before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeals by holding that the assessee company was a public limited company. While allowing the appeals, the Tribunal had relied upon the judgment delivered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Krishna Agency Ltd. v. CIT, 82 ITR 372. Moreover, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that, by virtue of the provisions of sec. 43a of the Companies Act, the status of the assessee company had been changed and the company had become a public limited company. Thus, the orders passed by the CIT under the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act had been set aside and the orders of the Assessing Officer were restored.

( 8 ) WE have heard learned advocate Shri Akil Qureshi for the revenue and learned advocate Shri K. H. Kaji for the assessee. We have also considered the relevant judgments cited by the learned advocates and have also gone through the relevant record including the Articles of Association of the assessee company.

( 9 ) LEARNED Ad