9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Family Trust. The trust was settled by Shri K. S. Thakkar who had contributed Rs.2,000 towards the corpus of the trust. The trust had purchased laproscopic instrument and shown hire charges income from laproscopic instrument for family planning operations carried out by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer by his order dated March 27, 1986, for the assessment year 1983-84 in the case of the trust had held that the income declared in the case of the trust, in fact, belonged to the assessee. The Income-tax Officer had relied upon his own order in the case of the trust for the assessment year 1986-87 wherein the detailed reasons were given as to why income of the trust should be treated as that of the assessee. The objection raised by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue thereafter filed applications under section 256(1) of the Act requesting the Tribunal to refer the questions of law for opinion of the High Court as stated in R. A. Nos. 44 to 48/Rjt of 1998. The Tribunal has rejected the said applications by order dated July 30, 1999, which has given rise to the present applications. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the circumstances, namely, that (i) the trust was not maintaining proper records of its meetings and documents in the form of resolutions were fabricated; (ii) the trust deed was drafted/settled by the settlor, Shri Kakubhai Shamjibhai Thakker, at the instance of Dr. U. G. Navlekar; (iii) the trust has claimed to be deriving rental income which is fabricated because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue is not able to show that any material evidence was ignored by the Tribunal or any evidence not legally required to be considered was taken into consideration by the Tribunal. No misapplication of legal provisions is claimed. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is also not shown to be vitiated in any other manner. In K. Ravindranathan Nair v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 178, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is the Tribunal which is the final fact-finding authority and a decision on the facts of the Tribunal can be gone into by the High Court only if a question has been referred to it which says that the finding of the Tribunal on the facts is perverse in the sense that it is such as could not reasonably have been arrived at on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
