9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (10) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst Lakhpat Singh and arises out of the proceedings for the assessment year 1978-79. As the questions proposed arise out of common facts, it is convenient to dispose of these applications by a common order. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner of Income-tax as well as the assessee, we are not satisfied that, on the facts of these cases as found by the Tribunal, any statable question 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 Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) and holding that the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its sweep the above question sought to be raised before us by learned counsel for the Revenue. It is settled law that the court cannot, under section 256(2), disturb 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 tinder section 256(1). 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 with and corresponds to the provisions of section 256(2) of the Income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n application under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. If he has failed to file an application under section 66(1) expressly raising the question about the validity of the findings of fact, he is not entitled 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 a reference to all these decisions, except to the decision in the case of CIT v. Kotrika Venkataswamy and Sons [1971] 79 ITR 499 (SC), which is most apposite to the controversy in the instant case. That case was concerned with penalty for conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late authorities including that of the Tribunal on the basis of which the penalties have been deleted. We may also observe that the assumption on which the proposed question proceeds, namely, that the impugned penalties were cancelled because the assessments were made on agreed basis is factually incorrect. On the contrary, the penalties were deleted because of other considerations and the ultimate finding that there was no concealment or fraud or neglect on the part of the assessee-respondents. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
