1995 (4) TMI 7 - HC - Income Tax

Application For Directing Reference High Court Question Of Law Search And Seizure Seized Assets

Summary

Issues:
- Refusal of applications for making reference by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
- Dispute over ownership of seized assets
- Deletion of certain additions to income by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)
- Appeal to Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by Department
- Application for reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act
- Questions proposed for reference to High Court
- Arguments presented by Department and assessee
- Determination of questions of law by High Court

Analysis:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh addressed a case involving the refusal of applications for making reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The dispute revolved around the ownership of assets seized during a search and seizure operation at the residential-cum-commercial premises of an individual. The assets included cash, gold biscuits, gold ornaments, impure silver, silver coins, and hundi khokas. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the claims made by the individuals related to the seized assets, leading to an assessment that included the value of unexplained items as belonging to the main individual. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted certain additions to the income of the main individual, which was then appealed by the Department to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the deletions made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Subsequently, the Department made an application for reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, proposing eleven questions for reference to the High Court. These questions primarily focused on the justification of the Tribunal's decisions regarding the ownership of various assets and the acceptance of explanations provided by the individuals related to the seized items. The Department argued that the Tribunal's reliance on irrelevant material and evidence led to decisions favoring the assessee without proper discussion of the evidence.

In response, the counsel for the assessee contended that the questions posed did not inherently involve questions of law but were based on factual determinations made by the Tribunal. The High Court, after extensive deliberation and review of the orders of the assessing authorities and appellate bodies, concluded that the issues at hand were primarily questions of fact decided based on the circumstances and evidence presented. The Court emphasized that its advisory jurisdiction under section 256 was limited to questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order, and it could not interfere with factual findings.

The Court highlighted that while mixed questions of law and fact could be referred, they must involve the application of legal principles for consideration as questions of law. In this case, the determinations were deemed pure questions of fact, and the Court found no errors in the orders of the authorities. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the Department's application for reference, stating that the questions proposed did not demonstrate a legal basis for reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act.