9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for calling for the statement of case from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "the Tribunal"). The facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this application are that the applicant filed his return of income in the status of an individual and his income was shown at Rs. 38,535. The same consisted of three components, namely, income from profession as an advocate amounting to Rs. 20,000, income of interest received from one Kanhaiyalal Sao to the tune of Rs. 18,535 and from agriculture a sum of Rs. 5,000. The Income-tax Department conducted a search at his residence as well as office on September 22, 1981. The premises of his fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... locker. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax held that the applicant's wife, Smt. Kiran Devi, could have only 32 tolas of gold ornaments and deducting the value thereof he fixed at Rs. 48,373. The total value of ornaments as well as that of primary gold was found to be Rs. 1,00,340. Thus, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner assessed the balance of Rs. 51,967 as unexplained investment under section 69A of the Act. Thus, the total income was determined at Rs. 90,502 plus agricultural income of Rs. 5,000. The assessment order is dated March 22, 1985. Being dissatisfied with the order of assessment the assessee-applicant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who vide order dated May 1, 1986, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) had fallen into error in reducing the income from undisclosed sources. The applicant also filed a cross appeal challenging the retention of addition of Rs. 14,169 on account of primary gold. Both the appeals were heard by the Tribunal. Vide order dated July 9, 1991, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Department restoring the addition of Rs. 51,967 as made by the original authority and rejected the cross appeal of the assessee-applicant. After the order was passed by the Tribunal the applicant filed an application under section 256(1) of the Act for referring certain questions of law to this court for answering the same. The Tribunal vide order dated December 18, 1991, dismissed the application expressing the view that the findings we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the Tribunal could not have dislodged the finding of the appellate authority. Mr. Rohit Arya, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, per contra, supported the order passed by the Tribunal contending that the entire thing hinges on facts and no question of law arises and the grounds which have been urged do not partake of the commission of liability, despite the best efforts of the assessee. It is urged by him that four questions were urged before the Tribunal. Three questions have been put forth in this application and that clearly goes to show that as the assessee is absolutely unsure about the nature of the legal issue that arises in the case at hand and, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. At this juncture, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had no material to accept that the applicant received 50 tolas of gold ornaments in partition is perverse and unreasonable and was the Tribunal right in law in reversing the finding? 3. Whether, the Tribunal was justified in law and had valid material to uphold the assessment of Rs. 51,967 being the value of the gold ornaments and primary gold under section 69A of the Income-tax Act in the hands of the assessee?" The crux of the matter is whether there has been perversity of approach by the Tribunal. Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee, would like us to scan and scrutinise the order of the Tribunal to find out that the Tribunal has approached the matter from er ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the finding of the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also failed to record reasons, giving benefit of 40 tolas to 50 tolas of gold ornaments. He has totally ignored the self-contradictory, vague and unreliable statement of Smt. Jain and Sh. R.K. Jain. The finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), in my opinion. is arbitrary, unfounded as the same is not supported by reasons. Under these circumstances, the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot be sustained and accordingly the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is reversed and that of the Assessing Officer restored." On a perusal of the aforesaid reasoning we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
