9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 seeking direction to Tribunal to state a case and refer questions of law. - Discrepancy in income estimation from agricultural activities leading to addition of Rs. 15,000 by Income-tax Officer. - Appeal filed by applicant against addition, subsequent reversal by Tribunal, and refusal to state the case for reference. - Argument on relevance of material considered by Tribunal and applicability of law in the case. Analysis: The judgment revolves around an application filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the applicant-assessee seeking direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer questions of law arising from an order passed by the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 632/(Ind) of 1985. The primary issue stemmed from the discrepancy in income estimation from agricultural activities, where the Income-tax Officer added Rs. 15,000 to the income of the assessee, a decision later reversed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but reinstated by the Tribunal in the second appeal. The applicant contended that the Tribunal failed to consider relevant material and overturned the findings of the first appellate authority unjustly. The applicant argued that the questions raised were of law and warranted reference, citing legal precedents to support the claim. On the contrary, the non-applicant argued that the order was based on a factual assessment of the entire material and did not involve any question of law. The Tribunal's decision was based on the conclusion that the applicant was not an agriculturist, considering various factors such as the alleged investments made and income declared. The Tribunal declined to state the case, emphasizing that the finding was factual and did not give rise to any question of law. The judgment referenced legal cases to support the principle that findings of fact, unless perverse or erroneous, do not raise legal questions. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the conclusion reached was justified, and no error was found in the Tribunal's order. The application was dismissed as lacking merit, with each party bearing their own costs. The judgment highlighted the persistence of the assessee in pursuing the case despite adverse rulings, emphasizing the importance of exploring all alternatives before reaching a rational decision.
|
