9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty imposed under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act is sustainable in law. 2. Whether the Tribunal's conclusion that there was no concealment of particulars in the case is contrary to its own findings and sustainable in law. Analysis: The Commissioner of Wealth-tax filed a petition seeking a direction to the Tribunal to submit a statement of case on the question of law regarding the penalty imposed on the assessee for non-disclosure of properties. The Tribunal, in its consolidated order, held that the assessee had not concealed any particulars and thus set aside the penalty. The Commissioner challenged this decision by filing a petition under section 27(1) of the Act to refer the questions of law to the High Court. The Tribunal declined to make a reference, leading to this petition. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal erred in concluding that there was no concealment of income, especially when the properties were not included in the wealth returns. However, the High Court held that the Tribunal's finding of no concealment was a factual determination and not a question of law. The Court cited precedents to explain that a mere finding of fact does not necessarily raise a question of law for reference to the High Court. The Court emphasized that the determination of concealment is a factual inquiry, not a legal issue. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the question of whether there was concealment of wealth was a matter of fact and not a question of law. The Court highlighted that the questions raised did not meet the criteria for reference under section 27(1) of the Act. The judgment was delivered by J. M. Srivastava, with agreement from S. N. Phukan.
|
