9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in law or acted without any evidence and contrary to the materials on record in treating the sum of Rs. 3,00,000 (Rs. 3 lakhs) as the concealed income of the applicant ? " We may add that initially the Tribunal had not accepted the assessee's application to refer the said two questions, but the assessee thereafter preferred Income-tax Application No. 32 of 1966 and on the said application an order was made in the assessee's favour and in pursuance of the said order dated August 23, 1967, the aforesaid two questions stand referred to us. We are inclined to reframe question No. 1 and send back the matter to the Tribunal for eliciting its opinion thereon. However, the circumstances under which this has become necessary may be briefly adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the Revenue, had failed to bring on record more convincing material in support of their submissions. After the Tribunal made the aforesaid order, the assessee had applied to the Tribunal to refer three questions to the High Court under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. These three questions are to be found in para. 9 of the statement of the case, and question No. 1 on which reference was sought is identical to question No. 1 which stands referred to us. However, by its order dated April 16, 1962, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's application on the ground that the remand order was not the final order and the application was, therefore, premature. The assessee chose to accept the aforesaid order at that stage. Pursuant to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e stage of ordering a remand in order to elicit further material. However, this does not mean that the assessee gave up the plea for all time. It was necessary to decide this question. In our opinion, question No. 1 framed in pursuance of this High Court's order in Income-tax Application No. 32 of 1966 does not bring out properly the controversy between the parties on this aspect of the matter. We, accordingly, reframe the question as under: Whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in initiating reassessment proceedings under section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? " At one stage, we had considered whether we could apply our mind to this question without having the benefit of the Tribunal's views thereon. But, on fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
