High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
CIT vs. K.S. Bhatia
Section 256(2)
Asst. Year 1986-87
Jawahar Lal Gupta & Ashutosh Mohunta, JJ.
ITC No. 93 of 1999
21st August, 2001
Counsel Appeared
R.P. Sawhney with Kishan Singh, for the Petitioner
JUDGMENT
JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. :
The dispute relates to the asst. yr. 1986-87. The assessee filed a return declaring the income of Rs. 31,430. The assessment was completed by the AO vide order dt. 30th Jan., 1990. The taxable income was fixed at Rs. 4,86,550. This addition had been made on the basis of some record relating to the assessment under the ST Act. The assessee filed an appeal. The CIT(A), Faridabad, vide order dt. 9th Nov., 1990, found that the assessee was entitled to the deletion of an amount of Rs. 57,595. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the Revenue and the assessee filed appeals. The claim of the assessee was accepted. A sum of Rs. 80,797 was ordered to be deleted. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The Revenue filed a petition under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961. It was dismissed. Hence, this petition under s. 256(2) of the said Act.
2. The Revenue maintains that the following two questions of law arise for the opinion of this Court : (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal was perverse in law in deleting the trading addition of Rs. 80,757 confirmed by the CIT(A) by ignoring the evidence contained in seized books of accounts and by relying on entries in journal which remained in the custody of the assessee when the entries in the journal were not reflected in the seized books of accounts and were also unsupported by any independent evidence like freight, cartage or sale bills? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal was perverse in law in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and confirming the order of the CIT (A), who, granted relief of Rs. 57,595 by ignoring the evidence contained in seized books of accounts and by relying on entries in journal which remained in the custody of the assessee when the entries in the journal were not reflected in the seized books of accounts and were also unsupported by any independent evidence like freight. cartage or sale bills ?
We have heard Mr. R.P. Sawhney, learned counsel for the Revenue. It is not disputed that the relevant additions were made on the basis of the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority under the ST Act. It is still further the admitted position that the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the AO before the Jt. Excise & Taxation Commr. was accepted. The order, which was the basis for additions, was set aside. It is on this basis that the Tribunal has found that the additions of Rs. 57,595 and Rs. 80,757 were not sustainable.
We find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. A finding of fact has been recorded on the basis of the evidence on the file. No question of law, as posed by the Revenue, arises.
6. Still further, it deserves notice that the assessee had claimed to have transferred certain stocks to a sister concern. This concern was owned by Smt. Shakuntala Bhatia. Her claim was also accepted by the Tribunal. The Revenue has accepted the order of the Tribunal as it has not even filed a petition under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, in that case.
In view of the above, we find no ground to direct the Tribunal to make any reference to this Court. The petition is dismissed in limine.
[Citation : 257 ITR 614]
