Allahabad H.C : Whether the Tribunal was correct and legally justified to hold that the offer made conditionally only to buy peace constituted concealment exigible to penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act (CIT vs. Punjab Tyres (1986) 56 CTR (MP) 7 : (1986) 162 ITR 517 (MP) : TC 50R.637 ?

High Court Of Allahabad

Urvashi Talkies vs. CIT

Sections 256(2)

Asst. Year 1985-86

M.C. Agarwal & S.R. Alam, JJ.

IT Ref. Appln. No. 183 of 1997

15th October, 1999

Counsel Appeared

Rajesh Kumar, for the Assessee : Ashok Kumar, for the Revenue

JUDGMENT

BY THE COURT :

By this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the assessee-applicant prays that the Tribunal, New Delhi, be directed to state a case and to refer the following questions stated to be of law and to arise out of its order dt. 30th Nov., 1995, passed in ITA No. 7164/Del of 1990, for the asst. yr. 1985-86 for the opinion of this Court.

“1. Whether the Tribunal was correct and legally justified to hold that the offer made conditionally only to buy peace constituted concealment exigible to penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act (CIT vs. Punjab Tyres (1986) 56 CTR (MP) 7 : (1986) 162 ITR 517 (MP) : TC 50R.637 ?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 (Sohinder Singh & Bros. vs. CIT (1979) CTR (P&H) 23 : (1980) 121 ITR 834 (P&H) : TC 50R.402 ?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee’s letter containing conditional offer amounting to admission of concealment of an income of Rs. 1,00,000 [169 ITR (sic) (Bom)] ?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, in total disregard of the case law relied upon before the Tribunal ?

Whether, there was material with the Tribunal to hold that the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 added in the assessment of the assessee-firm constituted the concealed income of the assessee-firm [Pratapsingh Ravindrajeetsingh vs. CIT (1996) 130 CTR (MP) 555 : (1996) 218 ITR 536 (MP) : TC 55R.352] ?”

We have heard Sri Rajesh Kumar learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. On behalf of the respondent it is contended that the question whether an assessee concealed the particulars of his income is a question of fact and no question of law arises. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, that the Tribunal’s findings are based on irrelevant evidence.

In our view, a question of law does arise out of the order of the Tribunal. We direct the Tribunal to state the case and to refer the following question for the opinion of this Court : “Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the assessee concealed the particulars of its income-tax in relation to a sum of Rs. 1 lakh is based on any relevant evidence and is sustainable in law ?” We, accordingly, direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the aforesaid question for the opinion of this Court.

[Citation : 247 ITR 562]

Malcare WordPress Security