Judgment:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of service.
2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'), for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and refer the following question of law said to be arising out of the Tribunal's order in I. T. A. No. 200/ JP of 1991, dated February 2,1995, relating to the assessment year 1987-88 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in allowing deduction under Section 80HHC on the counter sales in India to the foreigners, which are not subjected to customs clearance, ignoring the specific provisions of Section 80HHC(4A) of the Income-tax Act ?'
3. The Tribunal has rejected the application under Section 256(1) of the Act of 1961 on the ground that no question of law referable to the High Court arises from its appellate order.
4. The issue relates to an interpretation of Section 80HHC. The provisions of that section, where read in totality, entail the benefit of deduction under Section 80HHC on the counter sales in India to the foreigners, which are not subjected to customs clearance.
5. In our opinion, no question of fact is involved but it requires interpretation of statutory provisions which always remains a question of law.
6. The Tribunal has apparently erred in not appreciating this position in holding that no question of law arises out of its order.
7. The correctness or the erroneous nature of the order passed by it in appeal is not a criterion for making a reference of a question of law which arises out of its order. An interpretation of a statute or construction of a document ordinarily is considered to be a question of law and requires to be referred by the Tribunal to the High Court for its opinion if sought by any party to the order passed by it. However, any such application for making a reference can be refused on the ground, if the answer to such question is self-evident and no other view is possible or the question of law stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court.
8. Both the situations, in our opinion, do not exist in the present case.
9. Accordingly, we allow this application under Section 256(2) and direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion as prayed.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.