9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (10) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year 1978-79. As the questions proposed arise out of the common facts, it is convenient to dispose of these applications by a common order. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner as well as the assessee we are not satisfied that on the facts of these cases found by the Tribunal any statable questions of law arises out of its orders. The question on which the reference is sought is: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct to confirm the order of the AAC cancelling penalty under section 271(1)(c) holding that the assessment has been made on agreed basis and the penalty is not exigible? 4. The finding recorded by the AAC as aff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turb or go behind any finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal even on the ground, that the same is not supported by any evidence, unless it is expressly challenged by a question raised in the application under section 256(1). 9. An authoritative voice on the subject may be discerned in the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v . Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589, a case which dealt with the provisions of section 66(2) of the Indian Income- tax Act, 1922, a provision which was in pari materia and corresponding to the provisions of section 256(2). The Supreme Court pointed out that the power of a Court to issue a direction to the Tribunal under section 66(2) is in the nature of mandamus and it is well settled that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tled to urge before the High Court that the findings are vitiated for one reason or the other. This view has been reiterated from time to time by the Supreme Court in a number of cases decided by it on this subject. However, we do not think it necessary to burden this judgment by making reference to all these decisions, except to the decision in the case of Kotrika Venkataswamy Sons ( supra) which is most apposite to the controversy in the instant case. That case was concerned with penalty for concealment of income, which was deleted by the Tribunal on the finding that on facts disclosed no concealment of income was proved. On rejection of the reference application under section 61 of the Indian Income-tax Act, by the Tribunal and under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. On the contrary, the penalties were deleted because of other considerations and the ultimate findings that there was no concealment or fraud, or neglect on the part of the assessee-respondents. 13. The learned counsel for the revenue then submitted that we could reframe the question so as to include the issues sought to be raised by him in these applications. We cannot agree. While it is true that this Court has power to reframe the question in an appropriate case, such jurisdiction must be strictly sought within four corners of section 256 which is rather restricted. Occasion to reframe the question would have arisen when the issue sought to be raised fell within the purview of the question proposed or to bring forth the real ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
