1990 (8) TMI 9 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Referral of questions of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Determination of whether the Tribunal's conclusions are based on facts or mixed questions of fact and law.
3. Application of limitation provisions under section 153(2A) and section 153(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Assessment of possession of cash by the Hindu undivided family on a specific date.

Analysis:
In the present case, the assessee sought a direction to the Tribunal to refer questions of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court observed that the Tribunal had thoroughly considered all explanations provided by the assessee and the feasibility of the funds claimed. Despite the argument that the questions were mixed questions of fact and law, the court determined them to be purely factual. The Tribunal's conclusions were deemed reasonable and based on a comprehensive assessment of all relevant materials and inspection reports. Consequently, the court held that the questions could not be considered as questions of law warranting a reference.

Regarding the application of limitation provisions, the court clarified that section 153(2A) and section 153(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pertain to assessment years commencing after April 1, 1971, and not to the earlier assessment years in question. As a result, no referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order concerning the limitation period. Thus, the court dismissed the tax case petitions, emphasizing that no costs were to be awarded.

In a separate tax case petition, the assessee sought a direction to the Tribunal to refer questions of law related to the possession of cash by the Hindu undivided family on a specific date and the limitation period for assessment completed for a particular year. The court noted that the Tribunal had already examined all available evidence and determined, as a fact, that the family did not possess the claimed cash on the specified date. The court reiterated that this finding was factual rather than a mixed question of law and fact, thereby precluding a reference of the first question.

Similarly, the court reiterated the earlier stance on the application of limitation provisions, stating that no referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision in this tax case petition as well. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the absence of costs to be awarded in this matter as well.