9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Rejection of reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Income-tax Tribunal. 2. Determination of whether the question of law involved required reference to the High Court. 3. Consideration of bona fide mistake in non-disclosure of income. 4. Comparison with previous judgments regarding the requirement for reference to the High Court. Analysis: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana addressed the issue of the rejection of a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Income-tax Tribunal. The Tribunal had rejected the petitioner's prayer for reference, stating that the question of law involved did not necessitate a reference. The Tribunal found that the non-disclosure of a certain amount in the closing stock by the assessee was due to a bona fide mistake, which was rectified by filing a revised return during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee could not be accused of concealment of income, especially considering that the tax payable by the assessee and its partners was higher than the amount determined based on the revised returns. The High Court analyzed whether the question of bona fide mistake constituted a legal issue requiring reference to the court under section 256 of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner relied on a previous Supreme Court case to argue that a reference was necessary as the Tribunal's finding did not consider all the material on record. However, the High Court distinguished the present case by noting that the Tribunal had indeed considered all relevant aspects before concluding on the bona fide mistake. The Court highlighted that the assessee had disclosed the facts regarding the understatement of closing stock in the original return and rectified the mistake before finalizing the assessment, demonstrating a lack of intent to deceive. Furthermore, the High Court examined the petitioner's reliance on another judgment to support the need for reference. The Court clarified that the circumstances of that case differed, as the judgment was made in the absence of the assessee. Additionally, the Court referred to a previous case to establish the criteria for directing a reference to the High Court, ultimately determining that the circumstances did not warrant such a direction in the present case. In conclusion, the High Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and dismissed the case, affirming the Tribunal's decision to reject the reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
