9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw in holding that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is leviable in this case?" The Tribunal having dismissed the application, the Commissioner has approached this court through the present petition under section 256(2) of the Act. He complains that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application. Is it so ? A few facts may be noticed. The assessee was supplying goods to Liberty Footwear, Karnal, for export. Liberty Footwear were not only to reimburse the cost of the goods but also the cash assistance, etc., received by them after deducting their share of five per cent. During the accounting period for the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee received cheques and credit notes for a sum of Rs. 1,33,784. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad been supplied by the party to the Income-tax Officer, the assessee agreed that the amount of the three credit notes/cheques, viz., Rs. 1,33,784.30, be added to the income and the amount of debit notes, viz., Rs. 38,082.60 be added to the expenses. Resultantly, the amount Rs. 95,701.70 or Rs. 95,702 was added to the income. The assessing authority made the addition and levied tax. It also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). A penalty of Rs. 76,065 was imposed. The assessee's appeal having been dismissed, it filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. On a detailed examination of the entire record, the Tribunal recorded the following conclusions: (i) The Income-tax Officer had not questioned the assessee's explanation i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee was bona fide . . .". According to the Tribunal, these were pure findings of fact and no question of law arises, which may need to be referred to the High Court. Mr. R. P. Sawhney, learned counsel for the Revenue, has contended before us that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the application. According to learned counsel, the order of the Tribunal is vitiated as it has considered irrelevant matters and its conclusion regarding the bona fides of the assessee is wholly wrong. Section 256 of the Act enables the Revenue as well as the assessee to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court for decision of a question of law. The decision of the Appellate Tribunal, on all questions of fact arising in a case, is final. However, so far ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reviewed by this court in a reference. It is also permissible to invoke the jurisdiction of this court when a finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse and there is no evidence to support it. However, when the Tribunal draws an inference from admissible evidence and its decision is not based on any conjecture, surmises or suspicions, it cannot be said that a question of law arises from the decision of the Tribunal. What is the position in the present case? The Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's application for filing a statement of the case and making a reference to this court on the ground that the findings recorded by it are pure findings of fact and no question of law is involved. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee in respect of various credit and debit notes in spite of the various requests in that behalf. The information was supplied only when the assessing authority had asked for it. Thereupon, the assessee had immediately agreed to the addition of the amount of Rs. 1,33,784.30 to the income and the deduction of Rs. 38,082.60 on account of the expenses. As a result, the net addition of Rs. 95,701.70 was made to the assessee's income. On a consideration of all these facts, the Tribunal was satisfied that the assessee was not guilty of concealing any income as contemplated under section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In such a situation, the order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be wrong or perverse. It was a possible inference on admissib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and fact if not a pure question of law". On the facts, the case is clearly distinguishable and learned counsel can derive no advantage therefrom. Learned counsel also relied on the decision in CIT v. Managing Trustee, Jalakhabai Trust [1967] 66 ITR 619 (SC), to contend that while deciding a case under section 256(2), the High Court is not concerned with the ultimate decision but has only to see whether a question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. There is no quarrel with the proposition. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that no statable question of law arises on which it may be necessary for this court to exercise its advisory jurisdiction. On the contrary, we are satisfied that this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
