High Court Of Allahabad
Anjani Alankar Mandir vs. CIT
Sections 256(2), 68, 69
R.M. Sahai & Om Prakash, JJ.
IT Appln. No. 154 of 1985
9th November, 1987
Counsel Appeared
V. Gulati, for the Assessee : Standing Counsel, for the Revenue
OM PRAKASH J.:
This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, by the assessee dealing in bullion, silver, silver ornaments, etc., praying that the Tribunal be directed to draw up a statement of case on as many as seven questions proposed in the said application and refer the same for the opinion of this Court.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and are of the opinion that no question of law arises from the Tribunal’s order. The question for consideration before the Tribunal was as to what was the value of the 23 parcels which were not recorded in the books of the assessee. The assessee received as many as 34 parcels from South India but recorded only 11 parcels in the account books. The weight of each of the parcels recorded in the books was mentioned and the purchase price was also recorded in the books. The weight and the purchase price having been known, the value of the unrecorded parcels was determined. The contention of the assessee that the insured value should have been taken into account was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the insured value was understated. The question as to what should be the value of the unrecorded parcels is a question of fact and from the findings on this question, no question of law arises.
The next question relates to the cash credits appearing in, the books of the assessee-firm in the names of the two partners. The explanation of the assessee-firm that the credits were introduced by the partners was not accepted and the unexplained cash credits were taken to be the income of the assessee-firm from undisclosed sources under s. 68 of the Act. The submission of Sri V. Gulati is that the addition could have been made only in the hands of the partners and not in the hands of the assessee-firm under s. 69 of the Act. The Tribunal cannot be directed to refer such a question, inasmuch as this plea was neither raised either before the Tribunal or before the other authorities, nor has such a question been proposed in the instant application. Therefore, this question does not arise from the instant application as well as from the Tribunal’s order. The question whether or not the assessee firm sufficiently explained the cash credits is a question of fact and the Tribunal was right in observing that no question of law arises from the findings recorded on that question.
Sri Gulati also submits that an application under s. 254 had been made before the Tribunal stating that it had failed to elaborate all the arguments and the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. It is stated that the plea that the addition could have been made only in the assessments of the partners was raised before the Tribunal but the assessee omitted to mention that submission in the application. This plea can be raised by the assessee in the reference application that may arise from the order passed under s. 254 of the Act.
In the result, we are not inclined to ask the Tribunal to state the case on any of the questions. The application is, therefore, rejected.
No order as to costs.
[Citation : 172 ITR 67]
