CIT (Central), Ludhiana, vide this application under s. 256(1) of IT Act 1961, has requested ITAT to refer following question said to be question of law arising out of its consolidated order dt. 24th Dec., 1983 in ITA Nos. 113 and 116/Chand/82, to High Court of Punjab and Haryana: "Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest accrued on amounts set apart on partition as provision for marriage and maintenance of unmarried daughters could not be included in hands of father, assessee?" Inasmuch as, in our opinion, above said question does not call for reference, we are unable to accept request of concerned Commissioner for following reasons. assessee HUF had made provision for marriage of his minor daughter when partial partition of said HUF was effected. assessee contended in course of assessment proceedings that interest accrued on amounts provided for unmarried daughter for her marriage, could not be added to income of assessee. When said contention was rejected by ITO, matter travelled before CIT(A) , who ordered exclusion of amount of interest. When Revenue came before Tribunal, feeling aggrieved from decision of CIT(A), Tribunal placed its reliance on its earlier decision in case of assessee itself in ITA No. 540/Chandi/80 dt. 12th Nov., 1982 and confirmed finding of CIT(A). As matter of fact, this issue is covered against Revenue by Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Basant Singh (1983) 140 ITR 937 (P&H) and, therefore, no referable question of law arises. It will not be out of place to mention that in RA No. 149/Chandi/83 dt. 17th Jan., 1984 in case of Sh. Kirpal Singh, assessee's brother, request of Revenue for identical question was also rejected by Tribunal. At time of hearing of this reference application, ld. Sr. departmental representative submitted that identical question in assessee s own case in RA No. 8/Chandi/83 dt. 13th April, 1983 has already been referred to High Court. Perusal of said order shows that one of submissions of ld. departmental representative in course of hearing of RA No. 8 (supra) was that though issue is covered by above High Court decision but Revenue was anxious to carry matter before Supreme Court and he had submitted that till dispute is laid at rest by Supreme Court, reference should not be denied on basis of High Court decision, even of same State and, therefore, said reference was granted. But now we have two decisions of our own High Court CIT vs. Shiv Parshad (1983) 35 CTR (P&H) 165: (1984) 146 ITR 397 (P&H), which is followed in another case that is of Telu Ram Raunqi Ram (1984) 39 CTR (P&H) 310: (1984) 146 ITR 401 (P&H), in which their Lordships of High Court have unequivocally said in first case, i.e. of Shiv Parshad: "...............it would be futile exercise for Tribunal to refer matter to High Court and if Tribunal declined, then to issue Mandamus to Tribunal to refer matter, because, in either eventuality, answer would be foregone conclusion." It is apparent that in case of Shiv Parshad (supra), their Lordships made above said observation while dismissing Revenue's application under s. 256(2). When said case came to be followed in case of Telu Ram Raunqi ram (supra), their Lordships very unequivocally observed as under: "In our view, once Tribunal noted that there existed binding decision of this Court in light whereof Tribunal had no option but to held that IAC did have jurisdiction to levy penalty despite factum of amendment in question, Tribunal could not have referred that question for decision of this Court as that tantamounted to its questioning correctness of binding decision of this Court." (Emphasis given) Their Lordships in case of Shiv Parshad (supra) even went to suggest remedy for Revenue in such cases, which was to take matter before t h e Supreme Court to have case heard, their Lordships meant case which was decided against Revenue by High Court earlier. Normally, in view of consistency, we should have referred this case to High Court, as same has been referred earlier mainly on basic contention of Revenue that they wanted to carry matter before Supreme Court and no question is settled till it is laid at rest by Supreme Court, but having guidance from two cases, referred to above, and as per our reasoning given in RA No. 149/Chandi/83 dt. 17th Jan., 1984, we are unable to accept request of Revenue. In result, reference application is dismissed. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. BHAGAT SINGH