(1) JUDGMENT REPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. TAX APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2009 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Appellant. versus Shri Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, Sugoki Service Centre, Paldhi, Taluka : Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondent. .................... Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the appellant. Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the respondent. ************ W I T H TAX APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2009 Subhash Ramnarayan Kasat, Age : 55 years, Prop. Sugoki Service Centre, Paldhi, Taluka : Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Appellant. (2) versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jalgaon. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. ************ W I T H TAX APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2009 Subhash Ramnarayan Kasat, Age : 55 years, Prop. Sugoki Service Centre, Paldhi, Taluka : Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Appellant. versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. (3) 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. .................... Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. ********** W I T H TAX APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2009 Subhash Ramnarayan Kasat, Age : 55 years, Prop. Sugoki Service Centre, Paldhi, Taluka : Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Appellant. versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jalgaon. .. Respondents. .................... (4) Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. ********** W I T H TAX APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2009 Kiran Ramnarayan Kasat, since deceased through L.R., Smt. Maya Kiran Kasat, Age : 45 years, Prop. Sugoki Service Centre, Paldhi, Taluka : Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Appellant. versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jalgaon. .. Respondents. .................... Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. (5) ********** W I T H TAX APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2009 Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, Age : 52 years, Prop. Sugoki Service Centre, Paldhi, Taluka : Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Appellant. versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jalgaon. .. Respondents. .................... Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. ********** W I T H (6) TAX APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2009 Kiran Ramnarayan Kasat, since deceased through L.R., Smt. Maya Kiran Kasat, Age : 45 years, Prop. Sugoki Service Centre, Paldhi, Taluka : Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Appellant. versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jalgaon. .. Respondents. .................... Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. ********** W I T H (7) TAX APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2009 Kiran Ramnarayan Kasat, since deceased through L.R., Smt. Maya Kiran Kasat, Age : 45 years, Prop. Sugoki Service Centre, Paldhi, Taluka : Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Appellant. versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jalgaon. .. Respondents. .................... Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. ********** W I T H (8) TAX APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2009 Kiran Ramnarayan Kasat, since deceased through L.R., Smt. Maya Kiran Kasat, Age : 45 years, Prop. Sugoki Service Centre, Paldhi, Taluka : Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Appellant. versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jalgaon. .. Respondents. .................... Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. ********** W I T H (9) TAX APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2009 Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, Age : 52 years, Prop. Sugoki Service Centre, Paldhi, Taluka : Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Appellant. versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jalgaon. .. Respondents. .................... Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. ********** W I T H TAX APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2009 Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, Age : 52 years, Prop. Sugoki Service Centre, Paldhi, Taluka : Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Appellant. (10) versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jalgaon. .. Respondents. .................... Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. ********** W I T H TAX APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2009 Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, Prop. Sugoki Service Centre, Paldhi, Taluka : Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Appellant. versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jalgaon. .. Respondents. (11) .................... Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. ********** W I T H TAX APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2009 Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, Age : 52 years, Prop. Sugoki Service Centre, Paldhi, Taluka : Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Appellant. versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jalgaon. .. Respondents. .................... Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. (12) ********** W I T H TAX APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2009 Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, Age : 52 years, Prop. Sugoki Service Centre, Paldhi, Taluka : Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Appellant. versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jalgaon. .. Respondents. .................... Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. ********** W I T H (13) TAX APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2009 Subhash Ramnarayan Kasat, Age : 55 years, Prop. Sugoki Service Centre, Paldhi, Taluka : Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Appellant. versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jalgaon. .. Respondents. .................... Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. ********** W I T H TAX APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2009 Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, Age : 52 years, Prop. Sugoki Service Centre, Paldhi, Taluka : Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Appellant. (14) versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jalgaon. .. Respondents. .................... Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. ********** W I T H TAX APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nasik, District : Nasik. .. Appellant. versus Shri Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, Sugoki Service Centre, Paldhi, Taluka : Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondent. (15) .................... Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the appellant. Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the respondent. ********** W I T H TAX APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nasik, District : Nasik. .. Appellant. versus Shri Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, Sugoki Service Centre, Paldhi, Taluka : Dharangaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondent. .................... Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the appellant. Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the respondent. (16) ********** W I T H TAX APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik - 422 002. .. Appellant. versus Shri Narayan Ramdayal Lathi (HUF), 11-A, "Godai", Khandesh Mill Colony, Jalgaon. .. Respondent. .................... Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the appellant. Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate, for the respondent. ********** W I T H TAX APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik - 422 002. .. Appellant. (17) versus Shri Narayan Ramdayal Lathi (HUF), 11-A, "Godai", Khandesh Mill Colony, Jalgaon. .. Respondent. .................... Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the appellant. Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate, for the respondent. ********** W I T H TAX APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik - 422 002. .. Appellant. versus Shri Narayan Ramdayal Lathi (HUF), 11-A, "Godai", Khandesh Mill Colony, Jalgaon. .. Respondent. .................... (18) Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the appellant. Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate, for the respondent. ********** W I T H TAX APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik - 422 002. .. Appellant. versus Shri Narayan Ramdayal Lathi (HUF), 11-A, "Godai", Khandesh Mill Colony, Jalgaon. .. Respondent. .................... Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the appellant. Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate, for the respondent. ********** W I T H (19) TAX APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2009 Narayan Ramdayal Lathi (HUF), 11-A, "Godai", Khandesh Mill Colony, Jalgaon, Taluka & District : Jalgaon, PAN : AACHN2382Q. .. Appellant. versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nashik. 2. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jalgaon. .. Respondents. .................... Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. ********** W I T H (20) TAX APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2009 Narayan Ramdayal Lathi (HUF), 11-A, "Godai", Khandesh Mill Colony, Jalgaon, Taluka & District : Jalgaon, PAN : AACHN2382Q. .. Appellant. versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nashik. 2. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jalgaon. .. Respondents. .................... Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. ********** CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Date of reserving the judgment : 7th October 2009 Date of pronouncing the judgment : 5th November 2009 (21) JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Tax Appeal Nos. 5/2009 to 19/2009, 26/2009 and 27/2009 are filed by the original assesses and the Tax Appeal Nos. 3/2009 and 20/2009 to 25/2009 are filed by the Revenue. 2. All these appeals are arising out of identical facts and since the issues involved in all these appeals are identical, we have heard all these appeals together and they are being decided by this common judgment and order. 3. The appellant - assesses, namely, Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, Subhash Ramnarayan Kasat and Kiran Ramnarayan Kasat are real brothers. The said assesses and one Narayan Ramdayal Lathi, who is Advocate by profession, had purchased certain agricultural lands during the period 1992 to 1998. The said lands were acquired immediately thereafter by the State Government. The assesses received compensation / enhanced compensation towards the acquisition of the said lands during the assessment years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. The assesses had filed their returns for the said assessment years. Noticing that the assesses, apart from their regular business / professional activities, had jointly purchased agricultural lands involving 13 transactions and out of said 13 transactions, nine lands bearing Gut Nos. 700, 717, 845, 69, 700, 19/1/A, 1218/1/2, 29 and 30, were under consideration for acquisition at the time of purchase of land and subsequent to purchase, within a short span of time, the said lands were acquired and that they had received compensation, as well as, enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the assessment was re-opened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short, hereinafter referred to as "the (22) said Act") after issuing a notice under Section 148 to the assesses. 4. In response to the notice issued under Section 148, replies were filed by the assesses. The Assessing Officer also collected information from the Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, regarding original, as well as, enhanced compensation received by the assesses on account of acquisition of the lands in question. After considering the reply on behalf of the assesses and the material on record, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the assesses were indulging in the land transactions which were demarcated to be acquired by the Government. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the material placed on record clearly indicated that the assesses did not have any intention to hold the lands and to cultivate it. The Assessing Officer, therefore, came to the conclusion that the surplus received by the assesses, in respect of lands purchased by assesses and acquired by the State, is liable to be taxed as a business income, terming the said transaction as "adventure in the nature of trade", as defined under the provisions of Section 2(13) of the said Act. The Income Tax Officer, Jalgaon, has given detailed reasons for arriving at the said findings. The Assessing Officer has also held that the interest received, during the years under consideration, on enhanced compensation, was liable to be treated as a business income and, therefore, liable to be taxed, as such, within the meaning of Section 28 of the said Act. 5. Being aggrieved thereby, the assesses preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), upheld (23) the order of the Assessing Officer, in so far as finding that the compensation received from the Special Land Acquisition Officer, on account of acquisition of lands, was liable to tax. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), directed deletion of the enhanced compensation and the interest component, in view of pendency of the issue regarding enhanced compensation before the High Court. 7. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), both, the assesses so also the Revenue, filed further appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeals filed by the assesses were rejected. In so far as the appeals filed by the Revenue are concerned, they were partly allowed. It was held that the enhanced compensation was liable to be taxed. In so far as the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), regarding interest on enhanced compensation being not liable to be taxed, the Tribunal held that the interest was to be assessed on accrual basis from year to year. The Tribunal upheld the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to the extent, that the interest was liable to be taxed only on reaching its finality. The Tribunal also upheld that the interest has to be assessed under the head "income from other sources". Being aggrieved by this order, both the assesses, so also, the Revenue have preferred the present appeals. 8. We have heard Mr. M.K. Kulkarni and Mr. A.B. Kale, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants / respondents viz. assesses, and Mr. Alok Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the respective appellants / respondents viz. Revenue, at length. (24) 9. Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, learned Counsel, leading the arguments on behalf of the assesses, submits that in view of Section 2, Sub-Section 14(iii), Clauses "a" and "b" of the said Act, since the lands in question were agricultural lands, which were excluded from the definition of "capital asset", were outside the purview of "capital gains" under Section 45 of the said Act and, as such, the compensation on account of acquisition of the said lands could not have been taxed as a business income taking recourse to Section 2(13) of the said Act, treating the said transaction to be "adventure in the nature of trade". He further submits that, in any event, the transactions in question could not have been termed as "adventure in the nature of trade". He submits that the assesses were not involved in any business of dealing in lands. It is submitted that it was not the usual trade or business of the assesses. It is submitted that the finding of the Assessing Officers, that the assesses were engaged in "the adventure in the nature of trade" to earn business income, was based on conjunctures and surmises and without there being any basis to substantiate the said finding. 10. Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the assesses, in support of his submissions, relies on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ((1959) 37 ITR 242 (SC)). He also relies on the judgment of Delhi High Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Vs. Padma Bhandari ((1985) 153 ITR 69 (Del.)), so also, judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of Ch. Atchaiah Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ((1985) 156 ITR 78 (AP)) and judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Paragaon Utility Financiers (P) Ltd. ((1985) 152 ITR 7 (P&H). (25) 11. It is further submission of Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assesses, that since the returns were filed before the due date, for the assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, a mandatory notice under Section 143(2)(i) was required to be sent, within a period of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return is furnished. He submits that no notice was furnished within a period of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was filed. He, therefore, submits that the re-assessment proceedings cannot be initiated under Section 147 by issuing notice under Section 148 of the said Act. In support of this submission, he relies on the judgment of Division Bench of this court, in the case of Commissioner of Walth Tax Vs. HUF of H.H. Late J.M. Scindia ((2008) 174 TAXMAN 1 (Bom.)) 12. The next submission of Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of assesses, is that the provisions of Section 234B of the said Act applies to situation where there is default in the payment of advance tax. He submits that the said provision only applies when assessee is liable to pay advance tax in that year and if he has failed to do so. In the submission of the learned Counsel, firstly no tax was payable on the compensation so received and secondly, since the assesses could not estimate as to how much compensation was to be received by them, they could not have paid the advance tax. In support of his submission, in this respect, he relies on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anand Prakash ((2009) 316 ITR 141 (Delhi)). (26) 13. Mr. A.B. Kale, learned Counsel appearing for the assesse, namely, Narayan Ramdayal Lalthi, submits that the notices were issued to the assessee under Section 148 of the said Act after their returns for the relevant years were accepted and, as such, it was beyond the scope of Section 147 of the said Act. He submits that the grounds, which are available for invoking jurisdiction under Section 147, were not available with the authority and, as such, the proceedings under Section 147 of the said Act were vitiated. Relying on the judgment of Division Bench of this court, in the case of Gopal C. Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ((1994) 209 ITR 946 (Bom)), he submits that the lands, which are already subject matter of the land acquisition proceedings, could not be treated as stock in trade in the hands of an assessee and, as such, profit from sale of such land is not a business and "adventure in the nature of trade". He also relies on the order passed by the Division Bench of this court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Abdul Mannan Shah Mohammed ((2001) 248 ITR 614 (Bom.)), in support of the proposition, that the amount of interest which is received on enhanced compensation could not be taxed when an award granting enhanced compensation was challenged by the State Government by way of appeal. 14. Mr. Alok Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of Revenue, submits that the question whether transaction is "an adventure in the nature of trade", is essentially a question of fact. He submits that the interference by this court would be permissible only to find out as to whether there was an evidence before the Tribunal to justify the finding of fact. He submits that if there is evidence, no question of law arises and only in the event, if it is found that the Tribunal came to conclusion of fact on no evidence, or any (27) inferences which are entirely unreasonable, then only an interference by this court would be permissible. He relies on judgment of Full Bench of this court, in the case of Rajputana Textile (Agencies) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City (A.I.R. 1954 Bombay 58). He submits that even a solitary transaction is sufficient to hold that such a transaction is "adventure in the nature of trade", if the facts of the case so warrant arriving at such a conclusion. In support of this proposition, he relies on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Dalmia Cement Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi ((1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 614). He submits that in arriving at such a finding, intention of the assessee is relevant. He also relies on the judgment of Division Bench of this court, in the case of Gurdial Narain Das & Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ((1963) 50 ITR 633 (Bom)). 15. In view of rival submissions, following questions arise for our determination : (1) As to whether the assesses were liable to be assessed for the profits earned by them on account of the compensation received by them for acquisition of agricultural lands by terming the same to be "adventure in the nature of trade", as defined under Section 2(13) of the said Act ? (2) As to whether the assessment proceedings could be re-opened under Section 147 of the said Act by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the said Act, if no (28) notice is issued to the assessee within a period of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return is filed, in view of provisions of Section 143(2) of the said Act ? (3) As to whether an interest, as provided under Section 234B of the said Act, was liable to be levied in the facts of the present case ? (4) As to whether the interest is liable to be taxed only on reaching its finality ? and (5) As to whether the interest on enhanced compensation is to be assessed under "the income from other sources" when such enhanced compensation has been taxed as business income under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? QUESTION NO. 1 : 16. For deciding the first question, it will be necessary to refer to some observations of the Apex Court in the case of in the case of G. Venkataswami Naidu & Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ((1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC)), which reads thus : " There is no doubt that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by S. 66(1) is limited to entertaining references involving questions of law. If the point raised on reference relates to the construction of a document of title or to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the statute, it is a pure question of law; (29) and, in dealing with it, though the High Court may have due regard for the view taken by the Tribunal, its decision would not be fettered by the said view. It is free to adopt such construction of the document or the statute as appears to it reasonable. In some cases, the point sought to be raised on