9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petition. It is stated that in consequence of the reference application made to the Tribunal, only one question of law was referred to this court which is the subject-matter of Income-tax Reference No. 101 of 1976. The Tribunal had, however, declined to refer the other two questions as proposed by the petitioner, on the ground that these questions were pure questions of fact and no questions of law arose in respect of the two amounts of Rs. 45,000 and Rs. 15,430 mentioned in the said two questions. The assessment in this case relates to the year 1966-67, the previous year having ended on September 30, 1965. The petitioner had disclosed its total income at Rs. 46,880. As mentioned in the statement of the case (copy annex. P-11), it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stock of goods outside the books of account pledged with the bank were not satisfactorily explained. The ITO then proceeded to make certain calculations which are not material for the purpose of the present case and on the basis of these calculations, the total income of the petitioner was computed at Rs. 1,46,170, vide order, dated August 31, 1971. The ITO also directed that interest on the amount be charged under s. 139 of the Act. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the ITO which was heard and disposed of by the AAC. The AAC accepted the contention on behalf of the petitioner in respect of a sum of Rs. 45,000 to the effect that in view of the voluntary disclosures made by the creditors under s. 24 of the Finan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.. 139. Three questions were submitted before the Tribunal which are enumerated in para. 7 of the statement of the case. As noticed in the earlier part of the judgment, the Tribunal decided to refer only question No. (ii) relating to the chargeability of interest and declined to refer the other two questions (i) and (iii) pertaining to the two amounts of Rs. 45,000 and Rs. 15,430 respectively. The present petition has, thus, been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the Tribunal to refer the question in respect of the two amounts, mentioned above. The primary question which falls for consideration is, as to whether the Tribunal was justified in not referring the question pertaining to the restoration of the two amounts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been invested for acquiring the unexplained stocks. Seen from this angle, we do not find any perversity or even incorrectness in the finding of the Tribunal in regard to the restoration of the amount of Rs. 45,000. This being a pure finding of fact, the Tribunal was further justified in not making any reference to this court, as no question of law arose in the matter. The position in regard to the item of Rs. 15,430 is also the same. As noticed in the statement of the case, there is no dispute about the fact that the raw material and the finished material were less to the extent of the aforesaid amount on the list day of the accounting year as compared to the date when the investment in the unexplained stocks was at its highest. All ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
