9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l's to appraise the import of their decision in the quantum appeal in Wealth-tax Appeals Nos. 425 to 427/(JP) of 1979, dated August 30, 1980, and in Wealth-tax Appeal No. 7/(JP) of 1978-79, dated July 17, 1978, constitutes a mistake apparent from the record in terms of section 35(1)(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has acted without jurisdiction in entertaining under section 35(1)(e) of the Act a point which is not only prima facie debatable in terms of the Supreme Court decision in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50, but has actually been debated by the three Members of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in their o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,919 and Rs. 35,969 were made on account of unexplained cash credits in the account of Motichand Dhandia for the assessment year 1967-68. The additions were deleted in appeal. On subsequent enquiries it was revealed that the transactions with Motichand Dhandia was not genuine, and therefore, on the basis of the material in the possession of the Department, notices under section 17 were issued for the years 1961-64 to 1965-66 and also for 1966-67 and 1967-68. A petition dated September 26, 1974, was submitted to the Commissioner of Income-tax for settlement for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1965-66. The said petition was accepted on March 24, 1975, and a sum of Rs. 85,919 was agreed to be added on account of entries in the account of Motic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found that question No. 1 does not give rise to any question of law, as there was failure on the part of the Tribunal while dismissing the assessee's appeal to keep the position of law in mind which constituted a mistake apparent from the record. In respect of questions Nos. 2 and 3 also, it was held that there was a clear mistake apparent from the record, which calls for rectification, and, in respect of question No. 4, it was found that the earlier order of the Tribunal could not be referred and in respect of question No. 5, it was observed that no concealment took place. Hence the reference application was dismissed. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel. We are of the opinion that a question of law does not (sic) arise o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
